Category: USA

Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani is poised to clinch the Democratic nomination for mayor after former Governor Andrew Cuomo conceded late Tuesday night following the initial round of ranked-choice voting. The early results sent shockwaves through the city’s political landscape as Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic socialist, pulled off an unexpected lead against the much older and more established Cuomo.

Mamdani’s campaign successfully energized younger voters and newcomers to the political process, establishing a robust ground operation that surpassed all competitors. Despite Cuomo’s significant name recognition and his campaign spending more than three times as much as Mamdani’s, the assemblyman surged ahead. With 95% of precincts reporting two hours after polls closed at 9 p.m., Mamdani was the first-choice candidate for 44% of voters, while Cuomo garnered 36%. City Comptroller Brad Lander followed with 11%.

Just after midnight, Mamdani took the stage at his election night celebration on a Long Island City rooftop brewery, where he received a hero’s welcome. “Today, eight months after launching this campaign with the vision of a city that every New Yorker could afford, we have won,” Mamdani declared. “I will be the mayor for every New Yorker, whether you voted for me, for Gov. Cuomo or felt too disillusioned by a long, broken political system to vote at all. I will fight for a city that works for you, that is affordable for you, that is safe for you.”

The ranked-choice system played in Mamdani’s favor, especially due to Lander’s public endorsement of him as a second-choice pick. This alignment meant Lander’s supporters were likely to boost Mamdani in subsequent tabulation rounds. “Together, we are sending Andrew Cuomo back to the suburbs,” Lander said at his own campaign event.

Although Cuomo conceded the primary, he and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams have already petitioned to appear on the general election ballot in November as independent candidates.

According to preliminary data, Mamdani led citywide with 43.5% of more than 990,800 votes cast across the five boroughs. Cuomo’s campaign headquarters at the Carpenters Union building on Manhattan’s west side saw a surprise appearance from the former governor. “I want to applaud the Assemblyman for a really smart and good and impactful campaign. Tonight was his night. He deserved it. He won,” Cuomo stated, accompanied by his daughters and son-in-law. He also shared that he had personally called Mamdani to congratulate him.

Mamdani began primary day with a 5:40 a.m. press conference in Astoria Park before heading to Jackson Heights to meet voters. “We are approaching the dawn of a new era in New York City,” he said that morning. “We are turning the page on the corrupt politics of the past that made this the most expensive city in the United States of America.”

As vote counts trickled in during the evening, Mamdani’s supporters gathered at the brewery to watch the results, while most of his volunteers were at various watch parties organized by allied groups. The mood was jubilant. “I am in a little bit of a state of disbelief,” said Gabbi Zutrau, a social media strategist for the campaign.

“It is such a historic moment for us as Muslims, as South Asians, as immigrants, as New Yorkers,” said Saman Waquad, president of the Muslim Democratic Club of New York. “The way Zohran has brought people together in this campaign has been so incredibly beautiful.”

Janos Marton, a former candidate for Manhattan district attorney who helped canvass for Mamdani, noted the campaign’s ability to energize diverse voter bases. “It was clear that he was bringing new people in — South Asians, Muslims, young people — and that was true on Staten Island, where I live, and I guess it was across the city too,” Marton remarked.

Other candidates trailed significantly behind. Former Comptroller Scott Stringer conceded shortly after polls closed, and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams received just 4% of the vote. Several others — including Zellnor Myrie, Michael Blake, Whitney Tilson, Jessica Ramos, Paperboy Prince, and Selma Bartholomew — secured less than 1% each.

In other races, incumbent Public Advocate Jumaane Williams defended his seat against Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar. Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine held a substantial lead in the comptroller race over Brooklyn Councilmember Justin Brannan, who conceded later that evening.

The results released Tuesday night reflect only ballots cast in person or those received and scanned by June 20. The Board of Elections will not release the full ranked-choice tabulation until at least July 1. Affidavit ballots and corrected absentee ballots returned by July 14 will also be included in the final tally, with certified results expected thereafter.

Mamdani’s upset victory over Cuomo marked a powerful rebuke of the political establishment. Cuomo had initially entered the race as a frontrunner, capitalizing on his extensive political résumé and asserting his experience as a counter to both the Trump administration and what he portrayed as city mismanagement. Despite not residing in New York City for decades, Cuomo adopted a “Rose Garden” strategy, keeping a low profile while letting his well-funded campaign and outside groups, including the $25 million-backed Fix the City PAC, dominate the media space with anti-Mamdani messaging.

Nevertheless, Mamdani prevailed. Currently serving his third term in the New York State Assembly, he drew support through viral social media content and a ground game driven by 50,000 volunteers who knocked on over a million doors across the five boroughs. His campaign promises included fare-free buses, rent freezes on stabilized units, and municipal grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods.

Mamdani and Lander co-endorsed one another to maximize the ranked-choice system’s potential, even appearing together on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on the eve of the primary. Lander’s visibility grew after he was arrested by ICE officers while escorting immigrants from a routine court hearing.

The Working Families Party had backed a progressive slate topped by Mamdani and Lander. Adrienne Adams, their third endorsed candidate, addressed her supporters in Southeast Queens, saying: “We made people stand up and take note who this campaign was and why we were here and made people realize there really is somebody in this race that really does care about me.”

Elsewhere in the city, several borough-level contests saw decisive outcomes. In The Bronx, incumbent Borough President Vanessa Gibson fended off City Councilmember Rafael Salamanca. In Brooklyn, Borough President Antonio Reynoso retained his seat, defeating cannabis executive Khari Edwards. Manhattan’s borough presidency went to State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who beat Councilmember Keith Powers.

Manhattan and Brooklyn also held district attorney races. Incumbents Alvin Bragg and Eric Gonzalez won re-election easily. These contests, tied to the state judicial system, were not subject to ranked-choice voting.

All 51 City Council seats were up for election, many facing heated primary contests. In Brooklyn, Councilmember Shahana Hanif beat challenger Maya Kornberg, while Alexa Aviles triumphed over Ling Ye. In Manhattan, Chris Marte maintained a lead over Elizabeth Lewinsohn and Jess Coleman. In The Bronx, Councilmember Pierina Sanchez dominated former Councilman Fernando Cabrera.

Although the full results and ranked-choice redistribution won’t be finalized until July, the early data suggests that Zohran Mamdani has not only won the Democratic nomination but has also reshaped New York City’s political conversation heading into November’s general election.

Low-income families and children would be among the most affected groups under the Republicans’ proposed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). While the bill promises substantial benefits for affluent Americans, it would reduce support for some of the nation’s most vulnerable populations.

To fund the extension of the 2017 Trump-era tax cuts, Republicans in both chambers of Congress aim to scale back several essential safety net programs, including healthcare, food aid, and financial assistance. These changes would impact millions of American children.

Currently, more than 37 million children receive healthcare through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP covers pregnant women and children slightly above the Medicaid poverty line. Combined, these programs provide coverage to nearly half of all children in the United States, ensuring vital prenatal care, facilitating over 40% of U.S. births and nearly half of rural births, and supporting millions of children through adolescence.

Under the Republican plan, states would be allowed to impose waiting periods before families can enroll in CHIP and penalize them for missing premium payments by locking them out of the program. Additionally, the bill proposes a nationwide Medicaid work requirement for the first time. Though the House version claims to exempt parents, Allison Orris of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes, “What we’ve seen from past experience with work requirements is that exemptions are not always effective.”

Senate Republicans take it a step further, requiring even part-time work from parents of children over 14. Kevin Corinth of the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) argues that this may benefit families: “If [parents’] earnings go up because they’re complying, that actually could be good for the kids. Because there is good research showing that, when parents work and we get more earnings coming into the household, that can improve current and future outcomes [for children].”

However, critics believe these requirements create more red tape. “When there’s more red tape, we know that it’s harder for families,” explains Joan Alker, who leads the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. “To see these kinds of cuts is very, very scary.”

Despite these criticisms, House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office defended the proposals, stating, “Republicans are protecting and strengthening Medicaid for American citizens who need and deserve it by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse.” On NBC’s Meet the Press, Johnson also declared, “There are no Medicaid cuts in the Big, Beautiful Bill. We’re not cutting Medicaid.”

However, the CBO estimates that the House bill would reduce federal Medicaid spending by approximately $800 billion over the next decade. The Commonwealth Fund suggests that one in five children could lose Medicaid coverage under this plan. Alker warns that the proposed changes would push states into making tough choices between reducing services or raising taxes. “Governors are gonna have to do the dirty work,” she says, adding that the Senate’s version would likely impose even greater burdens on states.

CBO research indicates that childhood Medicaid coverage correlates with increased adult earnings and higher tax contributions, potentially offsetting the cost of the program. “Increasing children’s enrollment in Medicaid would reduce the future federal deficit by between roughly $800 and $3,400 per child per year of enrollment,” the CBO found.

Beyond healthcare, Republicans are targeting food assistance. The House bill proposes substantial changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, which currently helps over 15 million U.S. children afford groceries. Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at CBPP, said the House proposal represents “the deepest cut to food assistance in history.”

The bill would expand existing work requirements under SNAP. “Research has repeatedly shown that this doesn’t increase people’s employment. It doesn’t increase their earnings. It just cuts people off of SNAP and leaves them hungry,” Bergh argues.

In total, the House plan would cut over $290 billion from SNAP over the next 10 years. Bergh estimates this would “eliminate or substantially reduce” food support for more than 2 million children. The plan would also require states to fund between 5% and 25% of SNAP costs, a shift Bergh and others worry could prompt some states to reduce benefits, limit eligibility, or exit the program entirely. CBO notes that as a result, children could also lose access to free school meals, which are automatically tied to SNAP enrollment.

Overall, CBO estimates the poorest households would lose about $1,600 annually under the GOP proposal—mainly due to reductions in programs like Medicaid and SNAP. In contrast, the wealthiest Americans would gain an average of $12,000 per year. Disputing the analysis, House Republicans insist that “the biggest beneficiaries of this [bill] will be low- and middle-income Americans,” according to Speaker Johnson.

The Senate’s plan closely aligns with the House’s in imposing work requirements and shifting costs to states.

On the tax side, Senate Republicans propose modest improvements to tax benefits for families, including the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. Sarah Rittling, executive director of First Five Years Fund, welcomed this move, saying, “Expanding child care tax credits in the Senate bill is a step in the right direction toward making care more affordable and accessible for families nationwide.”

However, proposed changes to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) have raised concerns among researchers. The EITC, a critical anti-poverty measure for low-income working families, would require parents to undergo a burdensome precertification process before claiming the credit. Kevin Corinth of AEI notes that this added requirement could create barriers for families and place further strain on the IRS, which has already suffered staffing reductions.

The current Child Tax Credit allows families to deduct up to $2,000 per child from their tax bill. The House bill would raise this to $2,500 but maintains income requirements that limit access for low-income households. Megan Curran, policy director at Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy, points out that the proposal would make it even harder for families to qualify. The House plan would disqualify an estimated 4.5 million children by requiring both parents to have Social Security numbers. The Senate version, by contrast, would require only one parent to have a Social Security number, though it’s unclear how many children that would still exclude.

The bill would also preserve the existing rule that blocks the lowest-income families from receiving the full credit. “Under current policy, a two-adult, two-child family needs at least $36,000 [in income] in order to get the full [credit],” Curran explains. “That’s 1 in 4 kids nationwide who are left out of the full credit.” If the credit is raised, that same family would need $48,000 in income to qualify. “As a result, under the House Reconciliation Bill, 1 out of every 3 children would be left out of the full credit nationwide,” Curran adds.

While many countries provide child benefits to all families, Curran emphasizes that “we exclude the families with lower and moderate incomes. And those are children who arguably could really benefit from this type of investment the most.”

In 2021, Congress briefly expanded the CTC to cover the lowest-income families, cutting child poverty nearly in half during its six-month duration. Curran argues such investments pay for themselves. “Every dollar that you spend on the child tax credit in an expanded form that reaches all kids would return at least $10 a year,” she says. The return comes in the form of better health, improved academic outcomes, higher lifetime earnings, and increased tax contributions.

Tensions boiled over in Los Angeles on Sunday as thousands of protesters flooded the streets in defiance of President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard. Demonstrators blocked a major freeway and torched self-driving cars while law enforcement responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash bangs in an effort to disperse the crowds.

The protests, ignited by Trump’s immigration policies and intensified by the Guard’s presence, reached a new level of volatility. As dusk fell, police declared an unlawful assembly, ordering people to leave or face arrest. Although many complied and left the area, some stayed behind and clashed with police. Makeshift barricades were erected across streets, and objects like concrete chunks, rocks, electric scooters, and fireworks were hurled at California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers. Some officers had to retreat under a freeway overpass for safety.

Centered in several downtown blocks, the demonstrations marked the third and most heated day of protests in the city of nearly 4 million residents. The presence of roughly 300 National Guard troops seemed to deepen public outrage and fuel fear among citizens. The troops were tasked specifically with guarding federal properties, including a downtown detention facility that became a focal point for demonstrators.

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell acknowledged the strain on his department, stating, “Officers were overwhelmed by the remaining protesters,” and adding that some of the demonstrators were known agitators who regularly attend protests to stir unrest.

Law enforcement arrested dozens of people over the weekend. Among them, one person was detained on Sunday for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at officers, while another individual was taken into custody for ramming a motorcycle into a line of police.

Trump reacted on his social media platform, Truth Social, by urging McDonnell to take a harder line: “Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!” He also encouraged the arrest of masked protesters.

Meanwhile, similar unrest unfolded in San Francisco. Police there reported dozens of arrests after a group refused to disperse following a protest near Sansome and Washington streets. The San Francisco Police Department explained via a social media statement that the gathering turned violent, prompting officers to declare it an unlawful assembly. While many participants left, others regrouped near Market and Kearny streets, where they vandalized buildings and damaged a police vehicle.

The disturbances continued to Montgomery Street, where authorities arrested 60 individuals after they failed tocomply with dispersal orders. The department reported three officers injured, with one requiring hospitalization. In their statement, police emphasized, “Individuals are always free to exercise their First Amendment rights in San Francisco but violence — especially against SFPD officers — will never be tolerated.”

Back in Los Angeles, the National Guard’s arrival on Sunday morning escalated the situation further. Clad in riot gear and armed with long guns, troops formed lines while protesters chanted “shame” and “go home.” As tensions rose, law enforcement began dispersing smoke canisters into the crowds. Soon after, the Los Angeles Police Department fired crowd-control rounds, asserting that the demonstrators were violating assembly laws.

The group then took their protest onto the 101 Freeway, blocking traffic for hours until CHP officers eventually cleared the roadway by late afternoon. Not far from this scene, four self-driving Waymo cars were torched, creating massive black smoke plumes and intermittent explosions as the electric vehicles burned. Police later declared an unlawful assembly and shut down multiple downtown blocks.

The evening air was frequently punctuated by the sound of flash bangs as officers attempted to clear remaining pockets of resistance.

Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, formally requested the removal of the National Guard in a letter to Trump on Sunday afternoon. He described the deployment as a “serious breach of state sovereignty” and was in Los Angeles meeting with local officials and law enforcement at the time. Notably, the move marked one of the rare instances in recent decades where a state’s National Guard had been activated without the consent of its governor — a stark escalation in federal response to opposition against mass deportation efforts.

Both Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blamed Trump’s decision to deploy troops for the intensifying protests. They accused the administration of deliberately heightening tensions rather than prioritizing public safety. “What we’re seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration,” said Bass during a press conference Sunday afternoon. “This is about another agenda, this isn’t about public safety.”

Chief McDonnell, however, said the unrest was part of a typical protest escalation cycle, with tensions peaking on the second or third day. He dismissed claims from Trump administration officials that LAPD had failed to support federal authorities during Friday’s demonstrations, which erupted in response to a series of immigration raids. McDonnell emphasized that his department had not been informed about the federal actions in advance and, as a result, had not been able to prepare officers accordingly.

While federal and city authorities exchanged blame, Newsom reiterated that California’s law enforcement agencies were fully capable of managing the situation without federal intervention. He even took a swipe at Trump for celebrating prematurely. The president had posted a congratulatory message following the Guard’s arrival, which Newsom ridiculed given the unfolding chaos.

The tensions across California underscore the fragile state of relations between the federal government and local leadership, especially when it comes to immigration enforcement and protest control. While the White House insists the Guard deployment is necessary to maintain order and protect federal property, state officials argue that it only serves to escalate unrest and provoke further violence.

In both Los Angeles and San Francisco, the weekend’s events were marked by chaos, confrontations, and a deepening divide over how protests and public dissent are handled. As the dust settles, city officials continue to urge peaceful demonstrations, even as fears mount over future escalations.

The unrest shows no signs of abating as calls grow louder for federal forces to withdraw, and local leaders brace for what could be another week of conflict and confrontation.

Not long ago, U.S. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk seemed to share a strong public camaraderie. They were often seen together at events, collaborated on interviews, and spoke highly of each other. However, that apparent bond fractured suddenly, spiraling into a very public and bitter feud that now threatens political alliances and business interests.

The rift erupted when Trump publicly attacked Musk for his criticisms of the Republican tax-cut and spending bill. The situation escalated rapidly, unfolding through dueling posts on Trump’s Truth Social platform and Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), capturing national attention and drawing reactions from business leaders and politicians alike.

The conflict soon turned aggressive. Trump reportedly threatened to withdraw billions in government contracts awarded to Musk’s businesses. In retaliation, Musk implied that Trump owed his past electoral success to his support, stating that Trump “could not have won the election without him.”

As the feud became a national spectacle, several high-profile individuals attempted to intervene or weigh in. Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, the CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, publicly urged the two men to reconcile for the country’s sake. Posting on X, Ackman said, “We are much stronger together than apart.” Musk responded briefly: “You’re not wrong.”

U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan, speaking on Fox News’ Laura Ingraham show, also expressed hope for a reconciliation between Trump and Musk, while defending the contested budget bill that had triggered Musk’s initial criticism. But not all of Trump’s allies shared Jordan’s conciliatory tone.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who has had his own recent clashes with Musk, took a far more aggressive stance. On his “War Room Live” show, Bannon called for Trump to invoke the Defense Production Act — a national security law — to seize control of SpaceX. “The U.S. government should seize it,” Bannon declared, also urging the administration to revoke Musk’s security clearance and freeze all federal contracts with his companies pending an investigation.

Congressman Thomas Massie, a Republican known for his independent streak and previous opposition to Trump’s budget plans, pointed out the inherent clash in personalities. On X, he remarked, “The falling out was inevitable. You don’t land rockets backwards or get cars to drive themselves by suffering fools gladly.”

As the feud dominated headlines, others began floating new political concepts. Billionaire investor Mark Cuban appeared to back a suggestion Musk had posted in a poll — the formation of a new political party that would represent the “80% in the middle” of the American political spectrum. Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang joined the discussion, reposting Cuban’s endorsement and later proposing an “Independent ‘28 presidential primary” that could include figures like Cuban, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, and actor Matthew McConaughey.

The ripple effects of the Trump-Musk feud weren’t confined to the U.S. European officials also chimed in. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, who had previously sparred with Musk and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the role of Musk’s Starlink satellite service in Ukraine, took a swipe at the tech mogul. Referencing Musk’s earlier insult in which he told Sikorski to “Be quiet, small man,” the Polish minister retorted on X, “See, big man, politics is harder than you thought.”

Thierry Breton, the former European Union leader for digital policy and a previous critic of Musk, posted a cryptic combination of emojis — eyes and popcorn — suggesting he was watching the Musk-Trump drama unfold with interest.

Meanwhile, Ian Bremmer, president of the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, gave a blunt assessment on X: “Trump is more powerful than elon, but far less competent.”

The feud also triggered massive turmoil in the financial world, particularly for Tesla, Musk’s flagship electric vehicle company. Spooked investors began selling off Tesla stock rapidly, sending its value plunging by more than 14% and wiping out a staggering $152 billion in market capitalization.

Dan Ives, managing director and senior equity research analyst at Wedbush Securities, noted in a research brief that the public conflict had rattled markets. “The conflict was jaw dropping and a shock to the market,” he wrote, adding that the feud “creates major fear for Tesla investors.”

Ives further explained the potential implications for Tesla: “Tesla’s stock is under major pressure down 15% as investors fear that this Musk/Trump battle will stop their friendship and change the regulatory environment for Tesla on the autonomous front over the coming years under the Trump Administration.” Still, he emphasized that Wedbush remained bullish on Tesla long-term, though he admitted the situation “clearly does put a fly in the ointment of the Trump regulatory framework going forward.”

Other Tesla supporters were less optimistic. Ross Gerber, CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management and a well-known Tesla investor, criticized Musk sharply. In a series of posts on X, he wrote that Musk was “now attacking all the people he helped put in power.” Gerber continued: “Elon going postal on Trump and tesla stock is getting walloped. Trump will be returning his new tesla and is saying he got musked. All this can’t be good for shareholders. But hey, who cares about us.”

Gary Black, managing director at the Future Fund added to the pessimism. Black, whose firm recently sold all of its Tesla shares, commented that the feud would create further downward pressure on the stock. “These same bulls argued for months that the Musk-Trump alliance would streamline the federal process allowing TSLA to secure general unsupervised autonomy license nationally. That prospect is now highly unlikely.”

The dramatic deterioration in relations between Musk and Trump — once seen as mutual power brokers with influence over tech and politics alike — now poses uncertain risks for both figures. For Musk, the potential loss of regulatory favor and political alliances could hamper Tesla’s ambitious plans in autonomy and federal contracts for SpaceX. For Trump, alienating a high-profile tech magnate risks splintering support among moderate conservatives and business leaders ahead of a pivotal election.

What began as a disagreement over fiscal policy has ballooned into a fierce standoff with implications far beyond partisan politics. With influential voices urging a truce and the markets reeling, it remains unclear whether the damage can be undone — or if this feud marks a new chapter of political and corporate rivalry.

The once strong alliance between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk came apart abruptly on Thursday amid a fierce disagreement over Trump’s proposed tax legislation currently awaiting Senate approval.

In a sharp rebuke, Trump referred to Musk as “crazy” and hinted at severing federal contracts with Musk’s various companies, which include Tesla, the aerospace giant SpaceX, and the AI venture xAI. Following Trump’s remarks, Tesla’s stock suffered a significant drop, and Musk reacted by announcing that SpaceX would start dismantling its Dragon spacecraft program without delay due to what he deemed as threatening behavior from the president.

According to Trump, Musk—who had previously been a top advisor—opposes the sweeping tax package primarily because it removes tax credits for electric vehicles and because Trump decided not to nominate Musk’s chosen candidate, Jared Isaacman, to lead NASA. “I’m very disappointed in Elon. I’ve helped Elon a lot,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Just a week earlier, he had praised Musk’s involvement in the DOGE project, aimed at slashing government spending and cutting down on the federal workforce.

Reflecting on their past, Trump added, “Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore.”

Musk quickly responded through a terse post on his platform, X, simply stating, “Whatever.” He has publicly opposed the bill on the grounds that it would drive up federal deficits. In a more detailed critique, Musk posted, “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill. In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful.”

Further escalating tensions, Musk tweeted, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election,” asserting that his contributions were pivotal to Trump’s political fortunes. He went on to say, “Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” referring to the 2024 elections. Musk had poured over $250 million into Trump’s re-election campaign, making him the largest donor to that effort. “Such ingratitude,” Musk concluded in a follow-up post.

The billionaire CEO also launched a poll on X, asking, “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?”—a clear sign of his disillusionment with current political alignments.

The spat had immediate financial implications as Tesla’s share value dropped more than 8% amid the very public fallout between Musk and Trump. The conflict comes after several days of Musk lambasting the bill, which Trump has described as his “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” on the grounds that it would inflate federal deficits. Musk had previously labeled the legislation a “disgusting abomination.”

Just days before the verbal feud, Trump had hosted Musk at an Oval Office event and commended him for his role in federal fiscal initiatives. However, things took a turn when the president rescinded his nomination of Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire favored by Musk, to head NASA. “You know, I’ve always liked Elon,” Trump said on Thursday. “I’d rather have him criticize me than the bill, because the bill is incredible.”

Trump emphasized that Musk’s objections seemed tied to financial incentives for electric vehicles being cut from the bill. “Elon is upset because we took the EV mandate, and you know, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles,” he explained. “And you know, they’re having a hard time, the electric vehicles, and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy.”

According to Trump, Musk was not only aware of the proposed elimination of EV tax credits, but had accepted it earlier in the process. “Elon knew this from the beginning,” Trump stated. “He knew it … a long time ago.”

Trump also criticized Musk for what he sees as a sudden and opportunistic shift in position. “I’m very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people. He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it,” Trump said.

“But all of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we’re going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that’s billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair,” Trump added.

Regarding the withdrawn NASA nomination, Trump explained, “I’m sure [Musk] respected him, but to run NASA … I didn’t think it was appropriate.” He also pointed out Isaacman’s political leanings as a factor. “You happen to be a Democrat, like totally Democrat,” Trump remarked. “And I say, you know, look, we won. We get certain privileges. And one of the privileges we don’t have to appoint a Democrat. NASA is very important.”

Trump hinted that Musk’s change in tone followed a common pattern he had observed with other former allies. “People leave my administration, and they love us. And then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile. I don’t know what it is,” Trump noted.

“It’s sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it,” he added. “But we have it with others too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamor is gone.”

In sum, the dramatic unraveling of the Trump-Musk relationship underscores the growing divide between pro-business conservatives and the evolving priorities of Trump’s economic agenda. What began as a fruitful partnership rooted in mutual ambitions for innovation and deregulation has now devolved into a public clash over subsidies, spending, and political loyalty—with potentially lasting consequences for both men.

The U.S. economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.2% in the first quarter of 2025, marking its first decline in three years. According to a revised estimate released by the Commerce Department on Thursday, the economic downturn was largely driven by President Donald Trump’s trade policies, particularly the imposition of tariffs, which disrupted normal business activity. The updated figure was a slight improvement from the government’s original estimate, though it still reflects an overall slowdown in economic momentum.

A key factor behind the drop was a significant increase in imports during the first three months of the year. Companies rushed to bring in foreign goods ahead of the president’s widely publicized tariff hikes. This surge in imports, while representing increased spending on foreign products, had a negative effect on GDP calculations because imported goods are not counted as part of domestic production.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of the nation’s economic activity, had expanded by 2.4% in the final quarter of 2024. However, the sudden spike in imports in early 2025 reversed that growth. Imports jumped at a remarkable annual rate of 42.6%, the fastest pace since the third quarter of 2020, and this alone subtracted more than five percentage points from GDP. In addition to the impact of trade, consumer spending also experienced a marked slowdown.

Federal government expenditures contributed further to the decline. Spending fell at an annual rate of 4.6% from January through March, representing the largest contraction in federal outlays in three years.

The way imports affect GDP is primarily a technical matter. Imports are subtracted from the GDP calculation to ensure that only domestically produced goods and services are counted. As an example, when an American consumer buys Costa Rican coffee, it shows up as consumer spending. But because the product was not made in the United States, it is later subtracted to avoid distorting the true level of domestic production.

Economists believe the unusual import surge observed in the first quarter is unlikely to recur in the second quarter, which spans April through June. As a result, imports are not expected to exert the same downward pressure on GDP in the next government report.

Despite the overall contraction, there were some areas of strength within the economy. Business investment grew at a robust annual rate of 24.4% in the first quarter. One reason for this was that companies increased their inventories in anticipation of the tariffs, boosting overall economic activity. This buildup of inventories added more than 2.6 percentage points to GDP growth during the quarter.

A specific measure within the GDP data that reflects the core strength of the economy rose by 2.5% annually in the first quarter. This figure, while lower than the 2.9% rate recorded in the previous quarter, still suggests the economy maintains a solid foundation. This core measurement includes consumer spending and private investment but excludes more volatile components like exports, government spending, and changes in inventories.

Still, the outlook for the economy remains clouded by policy uncertainty stemming from President Trump’s aggressive trade stance. His administration has implemented 10% tariffs on nearly every trading partner worldwide, in addition to targeted levies on steel, aluminum, and automobiles. These actions have led to significant unease among businesses and consumers, and their long-term effects remain uncertain.

This week, a federal court added to the uncertainty by blocking some of the tariffs introduced by the Trump administration. The court ruled that the president had exceeded his legal authority by imposing 10% tariffs and other specific duties on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China. The ruling could lead to further legal and political challenges to the administration’s trade policy and may complicate efforts to renegotiate trade agreements.

The Commerce Department’s report issued Thursday is the second in a series of three estimates for the first quarter’s GDP. A final, more comprehensive revision is scheduled to be released on June 26. This upcoming report will incorporate additional economic data and provide a more complete picture of the country’s economic performance during the early months of 2025.

Overall, while the first quarter’s economic decline reflects real challenges tied to trade policy and consumer caution, some underlying metrics continue to show resilience. But as the legal and economic implications of the president’s tariffs play out, businesses and policymakers alike will be watching closely for signs of either recovery or further disruption.

The report paints a complex picture: on one hand, it reflects the drag caused by an extraordinary surge in imports and reduced government spending, and on the other, it reveals solid business investment and a still-growing core economy. Whether those strengths will be enough to offset continued trade tensions in future quarters remains to be seen.

Economists and analysts have emphasized that while GDP is a critical gauge of economic health, short-term changes can be volatile, especially when influenced by policy-driven shifts such as tariffs. Still, the drop in GDP, even if slight, has raised concerns.

President Trump has framed his tariff strategy as a means to bolster American industry and reduce the country’s trade deficit. However, the short-term outcome, at least as captured in this latest GDP report, has been mixed. The administration’s efforts have triggered import spikes, supply chain disruptions, and a response from trading partners, all of which have fed into the current economic narrative.

What happens next will depend in part on how businesses adapt to the new trade environment and whether consumer spending rebounds in the coming months. The final GDP report in June will be a critical indicator, not just for economists but for the broader public and political leadership heading into the second half of the year.

As the nation waits for further economic updates, the first quarter’s data is a reminder of how interconnected global trade, domestic policy, and consumer behavior truly are—and how quickly shifts in one area can ripple across the entire economy.

The White House is preparing to send a series of proposed rescissions to Capitol Hill, using a process that enables the cancellation of previously approved spending. This move is aimed at reinforcing some of the spending cuts outlined in the Deficit-Offset Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. According to a spokesperson from the Office of Management and Budget, the proposed package includes a $1.1 billion reduction from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the agency responsible for funding NPR and PBS. In addition, it outlines an $8.3 billion cut in foreign aid expenditures.

Elon Musk, the high-profile entrepreneur and political donor, has recently reflected on his time engaging with the government, revealing a more subdued and realistic tone. Describing his frustrations with bureaucracy, Musk remarked, “The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized. I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”

Musk also disclosed that he plans to reduce his political contributions. “I think I’ve done enough,” he stated, suggesting a pullback from his earlier, more active political engagement.

Previously, Musk had been highly motivated by the prospect of reshaping the political landscape in Washington. He had contributed over $250 million to support President Donald Trump’s campaign. Musk also participated in campaign rallies and wore campaign-themed hats at White House events. He frequently warned about excessive government spending, which he described as a fundamental crisis. Throughout this period, Musk consistently expressed strong support for Trump. “The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,” Musk said in February. “Frankly, I love him.”

Trump responded with praise of his own, calling Musk “a truly great American.” When Tesla experienced a downturn in sales, Trump demonstrated his loyalty by transforming the White House driveway into a temporary display area for Tesla vehicles, signaling his support.

Despite Musk’s waning involvement with the administration, it’s uncertain whether his recent critiques will significantly influence the ongoing legislative discussions. During the post-election transition period, when Musk’s influence was peaking, he played a role in stirring opposition to a proposed spending package. This occurred at a time when the nation was teetering on the edge of a government shutdown.

His latest remarks may serve to galvanize Republicans who are calling for even steeper spending reductions. One notable reaction came from Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who shared a Fox News article about Musk’s comments. He added his own opinion on the bill’s prospects, stating that there was “still time to fix it.”

Lee further emphasized the need for a tougher stance in the Senate version of the bill. “The Senate version will be more aggressive,” he asserted. “It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”

When the House of Representatives recently voted on the measure, only two Republican lawmakers—Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against it. Their dissent was noteworthy, especially in light of Musk’s public statements.

Davidson acknowledged Musk’s comments on social media. “Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,” Davidson wrote. “Don’t hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.”

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office has issued a preliminary analysis of the bill’s fiscal implications. According to their estimates, the bill’s tax provisions would raise federal deficits by approximately $3.8 trillion over the next ten years. In contrast, the spending reductions affecting Medicaid, food assistance programs, and other services are projected to save just over $1 trillion during the same timeframe.

Despite this imbalance, House Republican leaders argue that the bill could still be fiscally sound if it stimulates enough economic growth. They claim that improved economic performance might render the legislation either neutral or even beneficial in terms of deficit reduction. However, this optimistic assessment is not universally shared.

Independent analysts remain skeptical of those projections. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the legislation would actually increase the national debt by $3 trillion over the next decade, including interest costs.

This debate comes at a time of heightened scrutiny over the federal government’s fiscal discipline. The combination of growing deficits and competing priorities has forced lawmakers into difficult conversations about what to fund and what to cut. The White House’s rescission package is an effort to show seriousness about reducing spending, even if the broader legislative path remains uncertain.

Elon Musk is stepping down from his government position as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, where he had led efforts to trim and restructure the federal bureaucracy. His resignation, announced on Wednesday evening, brings to a close a contentious chapter marked by significant layoffs, agency reductions, and legal battles. Despite bold ambitions, Musk struggled to adjust to the political climate in Washington and ultimately achieved far less than he had initially hoped.

Initially, Musk had aimed to slash federal spending by $2 trillion, but he gradually scaled back his goal—first to $1 trillion, and then to $150 billion—as he faced mounting opposition. The billionaire entrepreneur grew increasingly disillusioned with the resistance he encountered, often finding himself at odds with senior figures in Trump’s administration. These internal conflicts emerged as Musk tried to restructure various departments, drawing significant political criticism in the process.

Although Musk’s advisory role was always intended to be short-term, he had lately been indicating a shift in focus back to his businesses, including electric car manufacturer Tesla and aerospace firm SpaceX. Yet officials within the administration remained vague about the precise timing of his departure. The public only learned of it when Musk made an abrupt announcement on X, his social media platform.

“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk posted. “The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

An unnamed White House official later confirmed Musk’s departure.

Musk’s resignation followed closely on the heels of a CBS interview snippet in which he criticized a central piece of Trump’s legislative agenda. In the interview, Musk said he was “disappointed” with what Trump had dubbed his “big beautiful bill,” a sweeping piece of legislation combining tax cuts with stricter immigration enforcement.

Calling the measure a “massive spending bill,” Musk argued that it undermined the objectives of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the agency he led. “I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful,” Musk remarked. “But I don’t know if it could be both.”

Responding from the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump defended his legislative initiative by pointing to the delicate negotiations involved. “I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” the president said, suggesting the bill was still subject to change. “We’re going to see what happens. It’s got a way to go.”

The legislation had already passed the House and was being debated in the Senate. Musk’s critiques have found support among some Republicans. “I sympathize with Elon being discouraged,” said Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin during an appearance at the Milwaukee Press Club. Johnson noted he was “pretty confident” that enough opposition existed to “slow this process down until the president, our leadership, gets serious” about reducing spending. He added that no amount of pressure from Trump would sway him from that stance.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has urged the Senate to avoid major amendments to the bill, emphasizing that House Republicans had achieved a “very delicate balance” that could be destabilized by significant changes. Since the House will need to vote again if the Senate alters the legislation, any shifts risk derailing the fragile consensus.

On the day Musk stepped down, Speaker Johnson thanked him for his service and affirmed that the House would continue pushing for further spending reductions. “The House is eager and ready to act on DOGE’s findings,” Johnson stated.

To support DOGE’s fiscal objectives, the White House is preparing a set of proposed rescissions—moves to cancel previously authorized expenditures—that will be sent to Congress. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the rescission package will target $1.1 billion from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which supports NPR and PBS, and $8.3 billion in foreign aid.

Musk has admitted that his foray into government work was more challenging than he had imagined. “The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized,” he told The Washington Post. “I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”

Recently, Musk also indicated he would be cutting back on political contributions. “I think I’ve done enough,” he said.

Initially, Musk had been invigorated by the chance to overhaul Washington. After contributing at least $250 million to Trump’s campaign, he wore campaign hats in the White House, held rallies, and framed excessive government spending as a crisis. He frequently expressed admiration for Trump. “The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,” Musk declared in February. “Frankly, I love him.”

Trump reciprocated Musk’s praise, calling him “a truly great American.” At one point, when Tesla’s sales were dipping, Musk even displayed his cars in the White House driveway to emphasize the administration’s support.

With Musk now exiting the administration, it remains uncertain what influence his recent criticisms will have on ongoing legislative debates. During his more influential period, Musk helped rally opposition to a spending bill when the government faced a potential shutdown. His latest remarks could inspire Republicans pushing for more aggressive cuts.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah reposted a Fox News article featuring Musk’s CBS interview and added his own commentary, stating there was “still time to fix it.” He said, “The Senate version will be more aggressive. It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”

Only two Republican representatives—Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against the bill during the House vote last week. Davidson acknowledged Musk’s critique on social media. “Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,” Davidson wrote. “Don’t hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.”

Preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill’s tax elements would raise federal deficits by $3.8 trillion over ten years, while spending cuts to programs like Medicaid and food stamps would save just over $1 trillion during the same period.

House Republican leaders insist that the resulting economic growth would counteract the bill’s deficit impact. However, independent analysts are skeptical. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts the bill would add $3 trillion—including interest—to the national debt over the next decade.

From the start of his second term, Donald Trump has pursued a presidency defined not only by sharp rhetoric and personal grievances but by an expansive attempt to consolidate power in the White House. What often appears to be a chaotic stream of attacks against universities, celebrities, corporations, and courts may in fact reflect a unified strategy: to weaken, if not fully dismantle, the system of checks and balances that has defined American governance since the Constitution’s founding.

In recent months, Trump has attacked a range of institutions and individuals—from attempting to block Harvard from enrolling international students to targeting Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift online, and pressuring companies like Walmart and Apple over their trade policy positions. On the surface, this might seem like political improvisation. But many legal scholars and political scientists argue that Trump’s actions aim to erode the very foundations of constitutional governance.

According to these experts, Trump’s second term differs from previous presidencies not just in degree but in kind. While past presidents have tested the boundaries of executive authority, Trump’s efforts appear to combine multiple unprecedented moves—sidelining Congress, challenging judicial rulings, asserting sweeping executive control, and using federal power to penalize perceived enemies in civil society.

Paul Pierson, a political scientist at the University of California at Berkeley, says the “sheer level of aggression and the speed at which [the administration has] moved” is without precedent. “They are engaging in a whole range of behaviors that I think are clearly breaking through conventional understandings of what the law says, and of what the Constitution says,” Pierson remarked.

Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute also acknowledges that Trump is advancing the most sweeping vision of presidential authority since Woodrow Wilson. However, Levin predicts that this effort could provoke a counter-reaction, particularly from the Supreme Court, which may seek to reassert limits on presidential power. “The reaction that Trump’s excessive assertiveness will draw from the Court will backfire against the executive branch in the long run,” Levin wrote.

Others aren’t so sure. With the Court’s conservative 6-3 majority, many analysts question whether it will truly rein in Trump’s efforts to expand his authority—raising concerns that America’s constitutional balance might be in serious jeopardy.

A Multi-Front Assault on Constitutional Boundaries

Unlike past presidents who typically challenged one branch of government at a time, Trump’s second term has been marked by a comprehensive campaign to sideline all constitutional constraints simultaneously.

He has marginalized Congress by undermining agencies established by statute, asserting the right to withhold funds Congress has authorized, and bypassing the legislative process to enact major policies—such as on tariffs and immigration—via emergency declarations. He’s refused to enforce laws he dislikes, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans American firms from bribing foreign officials.

Within the executive branch, Trump has centralized control through purges of civil servants, inspectors general, and independent regulators—blurring the boundaries between independent oversight and presidential authority. These actions have simultaneously weakened the authority Congress originally built into those agencies to shield them from political interference.

Trump has also challenged judicial authority. He’s resisted federal court orders, such as restoring federal funds and complying with rulings on immigration enforcement. One case involved Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a deported immigrant the administration admitted was wrongly removed, yet Trump’s government showed little effort to obey the court’s directive to facilitate his return.

Federalism, too, has been under pressure. Trump’s administration has sought to override blue states by enforcing conservative cultural policies nationwide. He’s pursued controversial arrests of local officials, including a judge in Wisconsin and a mayor in New Jersey. Though charges against the Newark mayor were dropped, a new case was filed against Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver—another sign of Trump’s willingness to use federal power against political opponents.

Even more extraordinary is Trump’s assault on civil society. His administration has targeted law firms with Democratic ties, withheld research funds from universities over ideological disagreements, and tried to revoke their tax-exempt status. Trump has even ordered the Department of Justice to investigate the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue and critics from his first term. Courts have already rejected some of these actions as unconstitutional.

Eric Schickler, co-author of Partisan Nation, says Trump’s strategy to deter other actors from performing their core roles is unprecedented in its scope. “This ability to just deter other actors from exercising their core rights and responsibilities at this kind of scope is something we haven’t had before,” Schickler said.

Yet for many of Trump’s supporters, this aggressive centralization of authority is precisely the point. Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget and a key architect of Trump’s governance philosophy, argues that the expansion of presidential power is necessary to undo decades of liberal influence. He contends that bureaucrats and federal agencies have usurped too much authority from elected officials, and the presidency must be “unshackled” to correct that.

Trump put it more bluntly in his first term when he said, “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Warnings Echo from the Founding Era

In a nod to American revolutionary tradition, Trump earlier this year signed a proclamation honoring Patrick Henry’s famed “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. However, he omitted a lesser-known but prescient warning from Henry, issued 13 years later when debating the Constitution’s ratification.

Henry feared that the presidency could become a tool for authoritarianism. “If your American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute!” Henry warned. His concerns about the potential for executive abuse were echoed by other Founders, even those who supported the Constitution.

James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers, argued that the Constitution’s design would prevent tyranny by dividing power across institutions and levels of government. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” he wrote. Madison believed this system, bolstered by federalism, would safeguard individual liberty through what he called a “double security.”

Despite the Constitution’s flaws—most egregiously its original accommodation of slavery—the separation of powers functioned relatively well for over two centuries, Pierson and Schickler argue. The diffusion of authority helped prevent any single individual or group from consolidating power.

But the system has weakened in recent decades, as growing polarization and nationalized political identities have eroded the commitment of officeholders to their institutional roles. Instead of defending the prerogatives of Congress, courts, or states, many officials now align themselves primarily with their political party. This shift has reduced the likelihood that members of a president’s party will challenge overreach, enabling figures like Trump to push boundaries further than ever before.

A Fragile System Faces an Uncertain Future

Will Trump’s second term mark a turning point in American constitutional history—one in which presidential power overwhelms the traditional system of checks and balances?

That question is no longer academic. Corey Brettschneider, author of The Presidents and the People, notes that past challenges to civil liberties—from John Adams to Richard Nixon—have often triggered successful public resistance. But even he expresses doubt that such outcomes are guaranteed in today’s polarized climate. “We have these past victories to draw on,” Brettschneider said. “But we shouldn’t be naïve: The system is fragile. We just don’t know if American democracy will survive.”

Yuval Levin remains somewhat more optimistic. He sees the Supreme Court as the last likely counterweight to Trump’s ambitions. While he acknowledges that Congress is unlikely to resist, he believes the Court will ultimately differentiate between a president’s authority over the executive branch and overreach into other branches and civil society.

“So this court will simultaneously strengthen the president’s command of the executive branch,” Levin predicts, “and restrain the president’s attempts to violate the separation of powers.”

Still, even that vision suggests a presidency transformed—and a constitutional system facing a stress test unlike any in modern times.

President Donald Trump’s approval rating has dropped to one of its lowest points in his second term, according to a new Reuters and Ipsos poll released on Tuesday. This marks a significant shift in public sentiment, as Trump has frequently pointed to strong poll numbers during his presidency to bolster his political standing.

Since his inauguration in January, the polling group has consistently tracked Trump’s approval ratings. These numbers serve as a barometer of public perception and are often cited by the president at campaign rallies and press events. Trump has routinely highlighted favorable polling data throughout his political career to showcase his popularity and leadership.

The importance of these numbers goes beyond mere perception. Falling approval ratings can impact a president’s influence, especially in a deeply divided political climate. Trump, who returned to the White House in January with relatively strong approval, has seen those numbers erode amid controversial policy decisions. One significant factor was his announcement of sweeping tariffs, which drew criticism and may have contributed to the decline in support. Though Trump later announced a 90-day delay on the majority of the tariffs, the initial backlash appears to have left a mark on public opinion.

A continued dip in approval could potentially weaken Trump’s political leverage and reduce the Republican Party’s prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. In a political landscape already marked by division and intense scrutiny, approval ratings remain a crucial indicator of electoral momentum.

The Reuters and Ipsos poll, conducted between May 16 and May 18 among 1,024 U.S. adults, found that Trump’s approval rating now stands at 42 percent. This is the same level he reached in earlier polls from April 21 and April 27. Just one week ago, the same polling group had him at 44 percent. The margin of error for this latest survey is plus or minus 3 percent.

When it comes to specific issues, the numbers tell a more nuanced story. The president’s approval rating on the economy sits at 39 percent, while 53 percent of respondents expressed disapproval. On employment and jobs, Trump received a 41 percent approval rating compared to a 49 percent disapproval rate. These figures suggest that concerns about the economy and job market may be driving some of the negative sentiment among voters.

However, not all polls show the same trend. A separate survey conducted by InsiderAdvantage between May 17 and May 19 among 1,000 likely voters painted a more optimistic picture for Trump. That poll found that 55 percent approved of the job he is doing, while 44 percent disapproved. With a similar margin of error of 3 percent, the InsiderAdvantage poll indicates a net approval rating of 11 points. This marks a significant improvement from early May, when the same polling organization found Trump’s net approval rating at just 2 points, with 46 percent approval and 44 percent disapproval.

The uptick in the InsiderAdvantage numbers may be tied to Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East, which appeared to boost his standing among voters. Such trips often allow presidents to demonstrate leadership on the global stage, which can translate into short-term approval boosts.

Political analyst Craig Agranoff commented on the fluctuating numbers in a text message to Newsweek on Tuesday. He said, “His approval rating dipping to 42% in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll signals a troubling trend for his administration, particularly as it aligns with growing public unease over economic policies like tariffs and concerns about governance amid understaffed agencies.”

Agranoff continued, “Given the consistent downward trajectory we’ve seen in recent polls, with disapproval climbing to around 51%, this negative trend could persist unless there’s a significant policy win or shift in public perception. A president typically becomes concerned with low approval ratings when they fall below 40% for a sustained period, as this erodes political capital, weakens legislative leverage, and risks alienating key voter groups; especially independents and moderates, who have shown notable disapproval in recent data.”

He concluded by saying, “For Trump, the challenge will be addressing these economic and credibility concerns swiftly to reverse the slide.”

On social media, the response to the poll numbers has also been swift and pointed. The account Republicans Against Trump posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, “NEW: Donald Trump’s approval rating drops to 42%, per Reuters/Ipsos poll, down two points since early May. Still way too high.”

Despite the varying results between different polls, the trajectory of Trump’s approval ratings remains a focal point for both political allies and critics. These numbers are reported regularly across a range of media outlets and pollsters, giving the public and political analysts alike a window into the president’s current standing.

Ultimately, polling data serves as both a reflection of and influence on the political landscape. While approval ratings can shift quickly in response to national or global events, sustained downward trends are often more telling. For President Trump, managing these numbers may prove essential not only to his current influence but also to his party’s fortunes in the next major election cycle. Whether the decline in the Reuters/Ipsos poll signals a lasting issue or a temporary dip remains to be seen. But the stakes, both political and legislative, are high.

As new polling continues to emerge, Trump’s team will likely watch the results closely and consider strategic adjustments. Whether through policy changes, messaging shifts, or public appearances aimed at boosting confidence, the pressure is on to regain ground before the midterm campaigns ramp up. Until then, the conversation surrounding Trump’s approval rating is unlikely to fade from the national spotlight.

In a surprising turn of events, fiscal conservatives on the House Budget Committee blocked a key vote Friday on the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a sweeping legislative package central to President Donald Trump’s agenda. The 16-21 vote marked a significant setback for Republican leadership, who had hoped to advance the bill to the Senate by Memorial Day. The defeat highlighted growing divisions within the GOP as lawmakers grapple with balancing demands from both fiscal hawks and moderates.

The bill, referred to as OBBB, encountered resistance from five Republican members—Reps. Chip Roy of Texas, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, and Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania. With Republicans only able to afford losing two votes to move the bill forward, Smucker’s switch from yes to no sealed its temporary collapse. His change, however, was a tactical move.

“To be clear—I fully support the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). My vote today in the Budget Committee is a procedural requirement to preserve the committee’s opportunity to reconsider the motion to advance OBBB,” Smucker explained in a post on X.

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington of Texas called a recess following the failed vote and told committee members not to expect a return Friday. “Go home,” he instructed them, adding he would notify them if a resumption would take place early Monday.

Smucker, offering further clarification, stated that despite unresolved concerns, the committee decided to proceed with the vote because negotiations were making progress. “There were continued, ongoing discussions and we were very close to having a yes,” he said. Smucker remained optimistic, expressing hope for a resolution by Monday. “We’re working through some remaining issues here, there are just a few outstanding issues I think everyone will get to yes, and we’re going to resolve this as quick as we can and hopefully have a vote, ideally on Monday, and we can advance this bill.”

Later in the day, sources informed The Hill that the committee would reconvene Sunday night at 10 p.m., signaling urgency to push the legislation forward.

Throughout the committee markup, negotiations were underway in a nearby room involving House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana. Despite these efforts, leadership was unable to win over the dissenting members. Roy, one of the Republicans who voted against the bill, criticized its fiscal shortcomings. “This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits,” he said during the markup.

Norman echoed Roy’s sentiment, voicing his dissatisfaction with the measure. “Sadly, I’m a hard no until we get this ironed out,” he declared, calling the bill’s current state “very disappointing.”

The OBBB package merges several major components of Trump’s legislative platform. It extends the tax cuts from his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, implements entitlement reform, and slashes food assistance programs—measures that Republicans claim will save at least $1.5 trillion over ten years. These changes include tightened work requirements for Medicaid targeting “able-bodied” adults, which are expected to cause millions to lose coverage, the repeal of green energy tax credits enacted by Democrats in 2022, and for the first time, requiring states to help fund food assistance programs.

Although House committees had completed detailed markups on these sections earlier in the week, final negotiations were still underway. Moderate Republicans were pushing for an increase in the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which was currently set at $30,000 in the draft. Fiscal conservatives, in contrast, wanted corresponding spending cuts to offset any tax relief expansion.

To satisfy the hawks, conservatives proposed several adjustments, including speeding up the implementation of the new Medicaid work requirements and advancing the timeline to eliminate green energy subsidies. Additionally, they proposed reducing the federal Medicaid match rate for populations covered under the Affordable Care Act’s expansion—changes likely to alienate moderates.

Norman insisted on firm commitments before backing the bill. “It’s a sticking point because it’s huge money,” he said. “I’m tired of smoke and mirrors.”

Scalise confirmed that Republicans were coordinating closely with the Trump administration on timing-related provisions of the package, which emerged as a major point of contention. “What they want to see is progress and get answers on some of the questions and expedite the timelines,” Scalise said. He emphasized the shared GOP goals: “We’re all in agreement on the reforms we want to make. We want to have work requirements, we want to phase out a lot of these green subsidies.”

Scalise added that some delays were unavoidable. “How quickly can you get it done? And it’s not as quick as saying you just turn it off tomorrow,” he explained. “Some things the administration does have to actually create a process to implement it, and we want to make sure that the Trump administration has the time they need while pushing it as fast as possible. So those are the conversations we’re having and we’re making a lot of progress.”

The stakes were underscored by the unexpected arrival of Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas at the markup, despite recently welcoming his second child. “I’m here to support the president’s agenda,” Gill told reporters as he entered the hearing.

Amid the tense negotiations, Trump directly intervened via his platform, Truth Social, urging Republicans to stop stalling and unite behind the bill. “We don’t need ‘GRANDSTANDERS’ in the Republican Party. STOP TALKING, AND GET IT DONE!” he wrote.

The post was clearly aimed at the dissenting members, though it didn’t sway Norman. When asked about Trump’s remarks, Norman responded, “I don’t need to grandstand. This is: how do you disagree with the agenda he laid out? He’s a smart guy, and he’s got so many good things [in the bill]. All we’re asking is [for] a little compromise somewhere.” He continued, “Let’s not give the farm. It’s not right. It’s not right.”

Despite the initial blow, Republican leaders are expected to continue pushing for a resolution by early next week. As negotiations continue, both sides within the GOP remain firm in their positions—fiscal hawks demanding deeper savings and accelerated reforms, and moderates seeking relief for high-tax states. The outcome will determine whether Trump’s sprawling legislative agenda can gain the traction needed to advance to the Senate and potentially reshape key federal programs.

As Elon Musk exits his position leading the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), a growing number of experts in public administration are voicing concern that the initiative has failed to enhance government services—and may have, in fact, harmed them.

“Doge is not offering any solid claims that it has improved services in any way,” said Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “Rather, it has made the quality of some government services worse.”

Musk, currently the world’s wealthiest individual, was tapped by Donald Trump in January to oversee the administration’s efficiency efforts. Appointed as a “special government employee,” Musk was restricted from serving more than 180 days. With his tenure now over and ongoing challenges in his business empire demanding attention, Musk is stepping away—but not without making some bold claims.

Despite widespread skepticism, Musk has declared that Doge achieved $150 billion in savings. However, numerous budget analysts dispute this figure, citing a pattern of Musk making inflated and inaccurate claims. The touted savings also fall significantly short of Musk’s originally stated goal of trimming $1 trillion from government expenditures.

Public policy specialists like Moynihan argue that Musk and Doge focused more on applying a cutthroat, private-sector mindset of slashing payrolls than on actually making government work better for citizens. Rather than investing in long-term service improvements, they accuse Doge of resorting to mass layoffs and quick budget cuts.

Martha Gimbel, executive director of the Yale Budget Lab, described the project as reckless. “They were the ‘department of government slash and burn’,” she said. “There doesn’t seem to be an approach to dig in on places where government services could really be improved. Any improvement in government services takes time. You have to invest. You have to build it out. You have to figure out how to fix it.”

Asked whether Doge had improved any services, Gimbel laughed before replying: “No. There has clearly been a degeneration of government services.”

Indeed, both experts and everyday citizens have reported worsening conditions in several areas. Veterans’ hospitals now require longer wait times for appointments. Calls to the Internal Revenue Service take longer to be answered. Social Security offices are increasingly crowded, and the departure of many experienced workers has left less-qualified staff giving out advice on benefits.

At a White House press conference on May 1, Musk defended his tenure. “In the grand scheme of things, I think we’ve been effective. Not as effective as I’d like. I think we could be more effective,” he said. “But we’ve made progress.”

Musk admitted, however, that achieving his $1 trillion savings goal proved far more difficult than anticipated. “It’s sort of, how much pain is the cabinet and the Congress willing to take?” he said. “It can be done, but it requires dealing with a lot of complaints.”

Despite Musk’s claims of progress, the White House declined to answer questions from the Guardian about deteriorating services or to offer examples of improved outcomes due to Doge’s efforts.

Gimbel warned that conditions are likely to worsen as the full impact of Doge’s job cuts plays out in the coming months. “Things will definitely get worse,” she said, pointing to the administration’s ongoing efforts to eliminate 80,000 positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs as just one example.

While Trump and Musk have frequently alleged widespread waste and fraud across government agencies, Gimbel said there’s a clear difference between targeted reform and indiscriminate cutting. “There is waste, and you can go after it,” she said. “People who have been in government know where those places are. There is a ton of tech that needs modernizing. Doge doesn’t seem interested in that. There’s a lot of Medicare and Medicaid overbilling. Doge doesn’t seem interested in that either. What you have is a relatively expensive exercise in slash-and-burn that sometime in the future will cost a lot to fix.”

Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit focused on government effectiveness, also expressed alarm. He likened Doge’s approach unfavorably to the strategies of former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, known for cost-cutting. “Jack Welch would be appalled by the approach that Doge has taken,” Stier said. “It’s not actually about cost-cutting. It’s about capability destroyed. Jack Welch would never, ever have fired people without having a real understanding about the way the organization worked and about the qualities of people who were being fired. This is an arbitrary exercise that has moved out employees who are often by far the most qualified rather than the least qualified.”

Stier dismissed Trump’s portrayal of Doge as a model of efficient reform. “That’s just not the case,” he said. “It’s hard to offer any rational basis for the decisions that are being made. There certainly aren’t any improvements that the American public will see.”

He warned of deeper consequences. “It’s burning down government capability,” he said. “It’s unquestionably clear that they are firing people willy-nilly and are disrupting government services without any understanding of the consequences or concern about the consequences. It’s a break-it-is-to-fix-it mentality. It isn’t a mentality that predominates in Silicon Valley. It’s sheer reckless behavior in the public sector because real people get hurt.”

Musk’s $150 billion savings figure, according to Stier, ignores the true costs of the upheaval. His organization estimates that Doge’s moves—through layoffs, rehirings, severance packages, paid leave, and lost productivity for over 100,000 workers—will ultimately cost taxpayers $135 billion in the current fiscal year. The broader public’s increased wait times and reduced service quality should also be factored in, experts argue.

Moynihan asserted that Musk’s entire philosophy was flawed. “His vision is that there is no way that government employees can produce anything of value,” Moynihan said. “So the idea of tools that makes government services better is completely alien to the Musk mindset.”

He added, “I think he believes that nothing public employees do has any real value, that they are not capable employees and therefore cutting them will do no harm. It’s a vision that doesn’t understand what public services are, why they exist and how they benefit people.”

Moynihan was especially critical of Musk for dismantling key initiatives designed to modernize government services, including gutting efforts to use technology more effectively and ending the Direct File program, which allowed citizens to file their taxes simply and at no cost.

Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said Doge’s budget slashing would deeply harm workers. She highlighted cuts to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an agency that conducts crucial research to ensure the safety of firefighters’ equipment. “There’s this notion that Doge is just cutting line items on a spreadsheet. It’s hurting real lives and real people,” Shuler said. “They’ve treated federal workers with blatant disregard and have been nothing short of dehumanizing and insulting toward them.”

Gimbel also cautioned about future public health risks tied to Doge’s actions. “Part of what government does is mitigate risk,” she explained. “Take food safety. Government inspectors decrease the risk that you will get listeria or salmonella. But when they reduce the number of food inspectors, will you get listeria or salmonella tomorrow? No. Will it probably increase the chances of people getting listeria and salmonella over the next five years? Yes.”

In the end, while Musk and Trump have promoted Doge as a bold effort to streamline government, many experts see it as a destructive campaign that has caused real damage with few, if any, public benefits.

President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled its 2026 budget proposal on Friday, presenting a sweeping reconfiguration of federal spending priorities. The budget reflects the president’s broader vision for his second term, aligning with the direction set in his first 100 days back in office and marked by abrupt terminations of federal personnel.

This proposal includes dramatic reductions, or complete eliminations, of spending in numerous domestic programs. Key targets include child care services, disease research, renewable energy initiatives, and U.S. peacekeeping efforts abroad. Many of these cuts are already in progress under the guidance of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. At the same time, the plan boosts funding by billions of dollars for Trump’s high-priority immigration enforcement and mass deportation policies.

Trump’s administration maintains its commitment to ending what it calls “woke programs.” This includes the elimination of preschool grants to states that run diversity programs. It also follows through on Trump’s vow to put an end to what he refers to as the “weaponization of government,” by slashing funding for the Internal Revenue Service, despite criticism that he himself is leveraging government power against perceived adversaries.

Overall, the White House estimates that the proposal reduces domestic spending by $163 billion, or 22.6 percent below current funding levels. In contrast, Trump seeks to inject $375 billion in new funding for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. This funding surge is part of what Trump calls his “big, beautiful bill” — a legislative package combining significant tax cuts with major reductions in spending. He insists this is essential to repel what he characterizes as a “foreign invasion,” even as data shows migrant arrivals at historic lows.

House Speaker Mike Johnson praised the plan, describing it as “a bold blueprint that reflects the values of hardworking Americans and the commitment to American strength and prosperity.”

Although presidential budgets are not legally binding, they often serve as guiding documents in the fiscal debates that unfold in Congress. Trump’s 2026 proposal is his first since returning to the White House and offers insight into his second-term ambitions and the broader Republican agenda on Capitol Hill.

The timing of the budget also intersects with Trump’s ongoing imposition of tariffs, which many view as a de facto tax increase. These tariffs, totaling potentially hundreds of billions of dollars, have sparked global trade tensions. Consumers, CEOs, and international leaders alike worry that this trade war could tilt the U.S. economy toward a downturn.

In an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Trump rejected claims that a recession was looming. When host Kristen Welker brought up Wall Street analysts’ growing concerns, Trump responded, “Well, you know, you say, some people on Wall Street say. Well, I tell you something else. Some people on Wall Street say that we’re going to have the greatest economy in history.”

Democrats were quick to criticize the budget as harmful to average Americans. Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said, “President Trump has made his priorities clear as day: he wants to outright defund programs that help working Americans,” while simultaneously “he shovels massive tax breaks at billionaires like himself and raises taxes on middle-class Americans with his reckless tariffs.”

The budget outline was presented by the White House Office of Management and Budget, led by Russell Vought. A key architect of Project 2025 from the conservative Heritage Foundation, Vought provided only topline figures in a leaner, “skinny” version of the full budget.

It addresses discretionary spending, which currently totals about $1.83 trillion annually across defense and nondefense sectors. Under Trump’s plan, this amount would drop by $163 billion, bringing it down to $1.69 trillion. However, this figure represents only a fraction of the government’s nearly $7 trillion overall budget, which includes mandatory spending programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

In recent years, federal budgets have steadily grown, as have deficits, which now approach $2 trillion annually. Interest payments on the national debt alone are nearing $1 trillion per year, driven in part by emergency COVID-19 spending, tax reforms that cut revenue, and rising costs tied to aging-related health care. The U.S. national debt currently stands at $36 trillion.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, emphasized the need for a comprehensive solution. “We need a budget that tells the full story, and it should control spending, reduce borrowing, bring deficits down,” she said.

Key proposals in the budget include slashing the State Department and international programs by 84 percent, leaving them with just $9.6 billion. This includes drastic reductions to the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Department of Health and Human Services would be cut by $33.3 billion, and the Department of Education would see a $12 billion decrease. Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health face major funding reductions.

Conversely, the Department of Defense would receive an additional $113.3 billion, and the Department of Homeland Security would gain another $42.3 billion, subject to congressional approval of Trump’s broader legislative plan. However, this defense funding boost has not been universally embraced among Republicans.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former GOP Senate Leader, labeled the defense spending hike a “gimmick.” He added, “America cannot expect our allies to heed calls for greater annual defense spending if we are unwilling to lead by example. Fortunately, Presidential budget requests are just that: requests. Congress will soon have an opportunity to ensure that American power – and the credibility of our commitments – are appropriately resourced.”

The power to determine federal spending lies with Congress, which must pass legislation to fund agencies and programs. That process often breaks down, leading to temporary funding measures to prevent government shutdowns. Lawmakers are currently working on Trump’s “big bill” that pairs tax reductions with massive spending cuts and expanded deportation efforts — unlike the budget blueprint, this package would carry legal authority.

Russell Vought is expected to appear before Congress in the coming weeks to defend the administration’s proposals. A veteran of Trump’s first term, Vought played a significant role in shaping the current vision. He also authored a detailed section in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 outlining a major overhaul of the federal government.

Vought is separately preparing a $9 billion package aimed at defunding both the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which includes PBS and NPR. Late Thursday, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other agencies to halt funding for public media.

Vought has indicated that this $9 billion proposal would be only the first in a series of so-called “budget rescissions.” These measures are designed to test how willing lawmakers are to go on record supporting significant funding rollbacks.

Many Americans may only now begin to experience the tangible impact of President Donald Trump’s broad tariff policies. That’s because a key shipping exemption known as the de minimis rule officially expired just after midnight on Friday. This rule had previously allowed goods valued at $800 or less to enter the United States without tariffs, bypassing many inspections and bureaucratic procedures.

The de minimis loophole was pivotal in transforming American shopping habits. It enabled Chinese online retailers such as Shein, Temu, and AliExpress to deliver a wide range of ultra-affordable products—from craft supplies and patio décor to clothing and camera gear—directly into American homes. With its removal, baseline tariffs as steep as 145% are now being imposed on Chinese imports, which could more than double the cost of items that bargain-hunting consumers have come to rely on.

This development is reverberating across social media platforms, where consumers are reacting with alarm. For the first time, abstract trade policy is being translated into something consumers can physically see: a higher receipt at checkout.

Shipping giants including UPS, FedEx, DHL, and the U.S. Postal Service report they are ready to handle the change. A spokesperson from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) affirmed to CNN, “We are prepared and equipped to carry out enhanced package screenings and enforce orders effectively.”

However, whether the average American consumer is truly prepared for these changes is another story.

Earlier this year, when Trump first curtailed the de minimis exemption for shipments originating from Hong Kong and China, the consequences were immediate and disruptive. The U.S. Postal Service briefly halted parcel deliveries from China, and packages that were shipped experienced substantial delays with little to no tracking available domestically.

At the core of the disruption is the sheer volume of affected shipments. A congressional research report found that over 80% of all U.S. e-commerce shipments in 2022 were classified as de minimis imports, most of which came from China. According to CBP, the agency processes nearly 4 million of these duty-free shipments daily, and the total number of such packages in the last fiscal year reached 1.36 billion.

This enormous volume includes everything from dog accessories and kids’ bead kits to kitchen tools and trinkets. Regular users of platforms like Temu and Shein told CNN that these sites have become increasingly popular as American-made products grow less affordable.

“I can’t afford to buy from Temu now, and I already couldn’t afford to buy in this country,” said Rena Scott, a 64-year-old retired nurse from Virginia, in a comment to CNN Business.

The new policy is likely to hit lower-income households the hardest. Research from economists at UCLA and Yale in February revealed that 48% of de minimis shipments were delivered to the poorest zip codes in the U.S., while only 22% went to the wealthiest areas.

This shift might not be instantaneous but is expected to unfold gradually. Even before the exemption officially expired, retailers like Shein and Temu began adjusting their prices. CNN monitored these hikes in real time.

Shein addressed the change directly in a public notice, stating, “Due to recent changes in global trade rules and tariffs, our operating expenses have gone up. To keep offering the products you love without compromising on quality, we will be making price adjustments. We’re doing everything we can to keep prices low and minimize the impact on you.”

Temu, meanwhile, is adapting its operational model. A spokesperson told CNN that the platform is increasingly relying on domestic fulfillment and expanding its network of U.S.-based sellers. “Temu’s pricing for U.S. consumers remains unchanged as the platform transitions to a local fulfillment model,” the company said. “All sales in the U.S. are now handled by locally based sellers, with orders fulfilled from within the country.”

It remains uncertain whether further price hikes will occur among these or other online retailers.

Shipping companies are also adjusting to the change. DHL confirmed to CNN that it has “increased our staffing levels in order to support the additional volume of informal entry clearances we anticipate.”

Meanwhile, the tariff changes themselves are significant. Goods from China and Hong Kong transported by major couriers such as UPS, DHL, and FedEx are now subject to a baseline 145% tariff, in addition to specific duties based on the type of product. Items arriving via USPS face a 120% base tariff or a $100 flat fee per item. That flat fee will rise to $200 beginning June 1.

While core supporters of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement continue to stand by him, suggesting in social media posts and interviews that they are willing to weather short-term economic hardship, broader public sentiment is shifting.

A CNN poll conducted by SSRS last month found that 59% of Americans believe Trump’s policies have worsened the U.S. economy. The survey, held between April 17 and 24, came shortly after the White House introduced a series of expansive new tariffs on numerous countries, only to then pause several of them. Nevertheless, 60% of respondents felt Trump’s policies have led to a higher cost of living in their communities.

Now, with the end of the de minimis exemption, those cost increases could become even more noticeable.

At a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump emphasized the significance of the move. “It’s a very, it’s a big deal,” he said. Describing the de minimis rule, he added, “a big scam.” He concluded with, “And we’ve ended, we put an end to it.”

With a stroke of policy, everyday consumers may now find themselves paying more for items they once bought at rock-bottom prices. What was once a behind-the-scenes matter of international trade rules has now become a kitchen table issue for millions of Americans, many of whom are confronting it for the first time not in headlines, but on their receipts.

On Monday, Representative Shri Thanedar, a Democrat from Michigan, publicly announced that he had filed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Thanedar’s move marks a significant step in the ongoing political battle over Trump’s actions during his presidency, despite the apparent lack of support for the measure in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

“I have introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump,” Thanedar declared in his online announcement. “When Trump ignores the Constitution, Congress, and the courts, he is not ‘fighting for America.’ He is tearing it down and endangering our democracy.”

Thanedar cited a range of grievances in his seven articles of impeachment, focusing on specific actions by Trump that the congressman deemed abusive of his power. Among the issues raised by Thanedar was the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was mistakenly sent to El Salvador, and the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in cutting funding without congressional approval.

Though the filing of the articles has made waves within Democratic circles, the likelihood of these articles advancing in the current political climate appears slim. In the Republican-majority House of Representatives, support from GOP members would be required for a vote on impeachment. Similarly, even if the House were to vote to impeach, a two-thirds majority in the Republican-controlled Senate would be necessary to convict the president. With Republicans maintaining significant control in both chambers, the articles of impeachment are expected to go nowhere.

However, the introduction of the articles is indicative of the deep frustration many Democrats feel with the president, particularly over a variety of issues that have sparked ongoing controversy.

“Donald Trump has already done real damage to our democracy, but defying a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, that has to be the one final straw,” Thanedar said, referring specifically to a Supreme Court decision related to the Abrego Garcia case. “It’s time we impeach Donald J. Trump,” he added emphatically, signaling his belief that this final act of defiance represented a threshold moment for impeachment.

Thanedar also highlighted what he considered to be other impeachable offenses by the president, including his aggressive tariff agenda, which he argued had a damaging impact on global markets. He also referenced Trump’s treatment of the press and concerns about the First Amendment, as well as what he described as the president’s involvement in bribery and corruption within the justice system. In addition, Thanedar expressed concern over Trump’s handling of Americans’ personal data, which he framed as yet another abuse of presidential power.

One of the most significant elements of Thanedar’s argument for impeachment was his accusation of “tyrannical overreach” by the president. “Article seven, tyrannical overreach,” Thanedar said. “Finally, and most importantly, he is attempting to consolidate unchecked power and erode the constitutional limits of the presidency.” This statement underscores Thanedar’s broader concern that Trump’s actions represented a threat to the very foundation of the U.S. political system.

Thanedar’s comments regarding Trump’s power were particularly pointed. “In this country, we have presidents, not kings. That’s not just misconduct. It’s impeachable misconduct,” Thanedar declared, adding that the president’s attempts to undermine constitutional checks and balances were clear grounds for impeachment. His words reflect a deep anxiety among some Democrats that Trump’s behavior threatens the balance of power that the Constitution seeks to maintain between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

Democratic concerns over Trump’s intentions have only grown more intense in recent months, especially in light of the president’s suggestion that he might seek a third term in office. This concern was amplified when the Trump Organization began selling “Trump 2028” hats on its official website, further fueling speculation about the possibility of a third presidential run. The idea that Trump might attempt to remain in power beyond his constitutionally-mandated two terms has been a source of significant alarm within Democratic circles.

“If we let this stand, we are saying the president is above the law. That the United States Constitution is optional,” Thanedar argued, emphasizing that such a development would set a dangerous precedent for the future of American democracy. He made it clear that he would not remain silent on the issue, calling on his fellow lawmakers—Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike—to join him in standing up against what he views as the erosion of constitutional safeguards.

Thanedar’s call for unity and action was resolute. “I won’t be silent and I’m calling on all my colleagues, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, to stand up with me,” he stated, underscoring his belief that the nation’s political leaders must put aside partisan differences in order to protect the integrity of the Constitution.

In his final remarks, Thanedar delivered a forceful conclusion to his announcement. “Enough is enough. Donald J. Trump must be impeached,” he said, signaling that he intends to continue pushing for accountability and standing firm in his position despite the considerable political obstacles ahead.

The introduction of impeachment articles by Thanedar is likely to remain a contentious issue within the political landscape, particularly as the nation heads toward the 2024 election cycle. While it seems unlikely that these articles will gain the traction necessary to result in Trump’s removal from office, they reflect the broader dissatisfaction and anger that many Democrats continue to feel toward the president and his actions during his time in office. For Thanedar, the impeachment effort represents not just a call for accountability but a desperate attempt to preserve the constitutional values he believes are under siege.

As the situation unfolds, the future of these articles will largely depend on the political dynamics within Congress and whether enough bipartisan support can be garnered for such an effort. For now, Thanedar’s impeachment move stands as a symbolic gesture in the ongoing debate over Trump’s legacy and the health of American democracy.

The White House has initiated a quiet search for a potential replacement for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly. This development comes in the wake of another controversy involving Hegseth, who is once again under scrutiny for allegedly leaking sensitive military information in a group chat.

According to the source, Hegseth disclosed classified details in a private group conversation using the Signal messaging app on his personal phone. The recipients of this information reportedly included his wife, brother, and legal counsel. The content of the chat allegedly included minute-by-minute updates on U.S. airstrikes targeting Houthi positions in Yemen. This incident is said to have occurred in March, around the same time that Hegseth relayed similar classified information to senior officials at the White House through another Signal group. That group inadvertently included a journalist.

The premature disclosure of strike information could have placed American pilots in harm’s way had it been intercepted by enemy forces. Already, Houthi militants have successfully downed two U.S. Predator drones, raising concerns about potential lapses in operational security.

Despite the allegations, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied any effort to replace Hegseth. In a statement posted on X, she declared, “President Trump stands strongly behind him.” President Trump echoed this sentiment during a press interaction at the White House, dismissing the controversy as overblown. “He’s doing a great job — ask the Houthis how he’s doing,” the president remarked.

Hegseth also pushed back against the allegations during a White House Easter event held earlier in the day. “This is what the media does, they take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people, ruin their reputation. It’s not going to work with me,” Hegseth said in his defense.

The defense secretary’s comments appear to reference the abrupt exits of four high-ranking Pentagon advisers last week. One of them, former Defense Department spokesperson John Ullyot, resigned and subsequently published a strongly-worded opinion article describing recent events at the Pentagon as a “full-blown meltdown” marked by internal disputes that, according to him, are undermining President Trump’s administration.

Three other Pentagon officials—Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll, and Darin Selnick—were also removed from their positions and escorted out of the building. These individuals were accused of leaking information to the media, although they have denied any wrongdoing. The trio issued a joint statement on X labeling their removal as “unconscionable” and emphasizing that they had not been informed about the specific nature of the alleged leaks.

“All three of us served our country honorably in uniform — for two of us, this included deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, based on our collective service, we understand the importance of information security and worked every day to protect it,” they wrote in their statement.

Caldwell and Selnick, in particular, have long-standing professional ties with Hegseth, having collaborated with him at Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative advocacy group that has influenced veterans’ policy in recent years.

The unfolding drama has not gone unnoticed by lawmakers. Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, a Democrat and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized Hegseth’s actions and pointed to the larger issue of his qualifications for the job. “But we must not forget that ultimate responsibility here lies with President Trump for selecting a former weekend TV host, without any experience successfully leading a large and complex organization, to run our government’s biggest department and make life and death decisions for our military and country,” she stated.

While the White House maintains public support for Hegseth, the internal deliberations about his future suggest a growing concern over the implications of his actions. The fact that the leak could have compromised national security has escalated the urgency of the situation, particularly as tensions continue to rise in the Middle East and the U.S. military maintains a delicate operational presence in the region.

The controversy has also shed light on the potential security vulnerabilities that arise from using personal devices and encrypted messaging apps for sensitive communications. The Signal app, while popular for its end-to-end encryption, is not authorized for the transmission of classified material by U.S. government officials. The revelation that Hegseth may have used it to share top-secret operational data with non-government individuals raises serious questions about protocol adherence and information governance at the highest levels of national defense.

The March leak incident is particularly alarming because of its proximity to real-time operations. Intelligence and defense analysts worry that such breaches, if exploited by foreign actors, could jeopardize not only the safety of military personnel but also the success of U.S. missions abroad. Given that adversaries such as the Houthis have already demonstrated their ability to down advanced American drones, any additional vulnerabilities could be catastrophic.

Although the administration has made no official announcements regarding a search for a new defense secretary, the internal discussions suggest that the controversy surrounding Hegseth has reached a critical point. The situation could develop further depending on whether more details emerge about the extent and impact of the leaks, and whether Congress or the intelligence community demands a formal investigation.

As the Pentagon reels from internal discord and high-level departures, questions remain about morale within the department and the future direction of U.S. military leadership. If more officials continue to speak out, or if further security lapses come to light, the administration could be forced to re-evaluate its stance on Hegseth despite the president’s current support.

In the meantime, the defense secretary remains defiant, attributing the backlash to politically motivated leaks and disgruntled former colleagues. Whether that narrative will hold up under increasing scrutiny is yet to be seen. The situation underscores the complex and high-stakes nature of leadership at the Pentagon, especially during a time of global instability and growing threats.

For now, Hegseth remains in his position, bolstered by public endorsements from President Trump and the White House. However, the growing controversy surrounding his handling of classified information has sparked concerns that may ultimately determine his political and professional future.

U.S. financial markets were rocked once again as President Donald Trump escalated his public criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, branding him “a major loser” over the central bank’s decision not to cut interest rates. The president demanded that Powell take immediate action to lower borrowing costs in a bid to stimulate the American economy.

Using social media as his platform, Trump urged Powell to slash interest rates “pre-emptively,” accusing the Fed chair of being too slow to react to the evolving economic landscape. “There can be a SLOWING of the economy unless Mr. Too Late, a major loser, lowers interest rates, NOW,” the president declared in his online post.

Trump’s latest remarks come amid growing concern that his own economic policies—particularly aggressive tariffs—have contributed to market instability and increased the risk of a recession. His ongoing feud with Powell, whom he appointed during his first term in office, has only deepened the market unease.

As a result of the heightened tensions and economic anxiety, U.S. stock indexes suffered steep losses. The S&P 500, a barometer of 500 of America’s most significant companies, dropped by approximately 2.4% on Monday. Since the beginning of the year, the index has declined by around 12%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average mirrored that performance, also falling 2.4% and registering a year-to-date loss of roughly 10%. Meanwhile, the tech-heavy Nasdaq fared even worse, shedding more than 2.5% and posting a staggering 18% decline since January.

The market jitters weren’t confined to the U.S. On Tuesday, trading remained subdued in most Asia-Pacific markets. Japan’s Nikkei 225 closed slightly lower by about 0.1%, and Australia’s ASX 200 declined by roughly 0.3%. In contrast, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index managed a modest gain of about 0.3%.

European markets also reflected the global unease. In early trading, the UK’s FTSE 100 edged down by about 0.05%, while Germany’s DAX index fell by 0.5%. France’s CAC 40 registered a more pronounced drop of 0.6%.

Ordinarily, the U.S. dollar and government bonds are viewed as safe havens during market turmoil. However, even these assets have come under pressure. The dollar index, which gauges the greenback’s strength against a basket of currencies including the euro, fell on Monday to its lowest point since 2022.

In another sign of market unrest, yields on U.S. government bonds climbed on Tuesday, indicating that investors are demanding higher returns to hold onto Treasuries. This trend reflects a lack of confidence in the near-term stability of the U.S. economy.

At the same time, gold prices soared to a record high, breaching the $3,500 per ounce threshold. The surge in the precious metal’s value signals investors’ preference for assets deemed more secure amid uncertain times. Gold is traditionally seen as a safe haven when economic conditions become volatile.

Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, pointed to multiple global factors boosting gold’s appeal. “No long-term resolution [is] in sight for conflicts around the world, particularly in Ukraine and Gaza,” she noted. “There are also concerns about the risk that geo-political tensions escalate as opportunities in the Arctic are eyed by the US and Russia,” she added.

Meanwhile, tensions are not just limited to economic policies and markets. On the global diplomatic front, China has issued a warning to other nations, urging them not to “appease” the U.S. in trade negotiations. The comments come amid increasing skepticism of American leadership in global economic matters.

Despite the heightened uncertainty, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently stated that a global recession remains unlikely, even with the pressures stemming from U.S. tariffs. However, the IMF also warned that its upcoming country-by-country growth forecasts would include “notable markdowns.”

President Trump’s criticisms of Powell are not new. Throughout his first term, he repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with Powell’s approach to interest rates and even reportedly considered firing him. Following his return to office, Trump has continued to pressure Powell to cut borrowing costs.

This latest attack followed Powell’s remarks cautioning that Trump’s tariff policies could contribute to inflation and impede economic growth. Trump ramped up his criticism last Thursday by publicly calling for Powell’s removal. “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough,” he wrote on social media.

The idea of dismissing the Fed chair is controversial and could face significant legal hurdles. The Federal Reserve has traditionally operated with a high degree of independence to insulate it from short-term political influence. Powell has previously told reporters that he does not believe the president possesses the legal authority to fire him.

Still, the Trump administration appears to be exploring options. One of Trump’s top economic advisers confirmed that discussions about removing Powell were underway, noting this on Friday—a day when the U.S. stock market was closed.

These developments coincide with the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, where top financial policymakers have gathered in Washington. The heightened political pressure on the Fed has become a central topic of concern at the gatherings.

Christopher Meissner, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis, and a former IMF employee, explained to the BBC’s Today programme that political interference in central banking was more common in the past. “However, the past 30 or 40 years what we’ve learned is that central bank independence is the key to financial stability and low inflation. And I think this is a major reversal and we have to watch out for it,” he warned.

Streeter echoed this view, emphasizing the importance of insulating monetary policymakers from political influence. “The independence of central banks is seen as critical to ensure long-term price stability, ringfencing policymakers from short-term political pressures,” she said.

Looking ahead, the IMF will release its latest economic projections shortly. These forecasts are expected to reflect growing concerns about U.S. economic performance and its potential ripple effects worldwide. “They used to say ‘When the US sneezed, the rest of the world caught a cold’. It’ll be really curious to see if that continues,” said Meissner. “However, I think people are expecting a pretty significant downturn in the US in the coming months… and that can’t be good for the rest of the world.”

Streeter noted that Trump’s policy decisions have undermined the global perception of the U.S. as a stable economic leader. “Yields on 10-year US Treasuries have held onto their recent rise above 4.4%. It’s another sign of unease about the direction of the US economy, amid worries that policies playing out could keep inflation higher and slow growth, and flags the anxiety rattling through the markets right now,” she said.

Goldman Sachs has taken a significantly more negative stance on the U.S. economy and stock market due to President Donald Trump’s tariff policies. The firm now joins a growing number of economists warning that the ongoing trade war could push the U.S. into a recession and cause further trouble for stock market investors.

Goldman Sachs economists, led by Ronnie Walker, have adjusted their forecast to anticipate a 15% average tariff rate on all goods this year. This revision came in a Sunday note to clients and reflects Trump’s latest aggressive stance ahead of his scheduled “Liberation Day” tariff announcement on Wednesday. The president has indicated that he intends to impose even steeper tariffs than originally planned.

As a result, Goldman’s economic outlook has become more bearish. The firm has raised its probability of a U.S. recession within the next year from 20% to 35%. Additionally, Goldman economists have revised several key projections. Their end-of-2025 inflation estimate has been increased to 3.5%, up from 2.8% just last month. Their unemployment forecast now stands at 4.5%, which would be the highest since October 2021. Meanwhile, the firm expects gross domestic product (GDP) growth to slow to 1%, the lowest level since 2020.

Stock market expectations have also been downgraded in response to these economic concerns. Goldman strategists, led by David Kostin, warned clients that they expect the S&P 500 index to decline by 5% over the next three months. They have set a price target of 5,300 for the index in that time frame. Over the next year, they project the S&P 500 will rise by only 6%, setting a new year-ahead target of 5,900. This marks a substantial downward revision from Goldman’s previous forecast of 6,500, which was issued as recently as February 28. The nearly 10% cut in expectations reflects the increasing uncertainty surrounding Trump’s trade policies.

Big Number

6.3%—That is how much the S&P 500 declined in March through Friday’s close, putting it on track for its worst month since September 2022. This figure does not even account for an additional drop of more than 1% in premarket trading on Monday.

Key Background

On Sunday, Trump announced that he plans to impose “substantial” import taxes on “all countries” through his new reciprocal tariff policy. This marks a shift from his position just a week earlier, when he suggested that the upcoming tariffs would be “more lenient.”

Trump’s top economic official, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, has acknowledged that a recession is possible but has argued that any downturn would be due to unsustainable economic growth fueled by excessive government spending and imbalanced trade relationships. However, some economists have cautioned that Trump’s policies could push the U.S. into an avoidable recession. UCLA Anderson School of Management economist Clement Bohr issued a stark warning to Trump earlier this month: “If all your wishes come true, you could very well be the author of a deep recession.”

The financial markets are particularly concerned about the potential inflationary effects of tariffs. Higher tariffs typically lead to higher prices for imported goods, which could drive overall inflation upward. Persistent inflation, in turn, might force the Federal Reserve to reconsider its plans for further interest rate cuts. If the Fed decides to keep rates high to combat inflation, borrowing costs would remain elevated, potentially hurting corporate profit margins and weakening consumer demand.

Trump’s trade policies have been a point of contention among economists and investors alike. While he has long argued that tariffs will protect American industries and create jobs, critics say that the economic consequences—including higher costs for businesses and consumers—outweigh any potential benefits. Goldman’s latest forecast suggests that these concerns are becoming more widely accepted on Wall Street.

The uncertainty surrounding Trump’s tariff policy has already taken a toll on the stock market. The S&P 500’s steep decline in March suggests that investors are increasingly worried about the economic outlook. Should Trump move forward with his plans for aggressive tariffs, market volatility could continue in the coming months.

Goldman Sachs is not alone in its pessimism. Other major financial institutions have also sounded alarms about the potential economic impact of Trump’s trade policies. Many analysts believe that if tariffs remain in place or are expanded further, the risks of a prolonged economic slowdown will increase.

While the White House has maintained that tariffs will ultimately benefit the economy by reducing reliance on foreign goods, the short-term consequences appear to be negative. Businesses that rely on imported materials are already facing higher costs, and many have signaled that they will pass these costs on to consumers. This could exacerbate inflationary pressures at a time when the Federal Reserve is trying to bring inflation under control.

The bond market has also reacted to these developments, with yields on long-term U.S. Treasury bonds rising in response to inflation concerns. Higher bond yields can lead to tighter financial conditions, further slowing economic growth.

As uncertainty looms, investors will be closely watching Trump’s official announcement on Wednesday to see if his latest tariff proposals will be as severe as he has suggested. If the tariffs are implemented as planned, further market turbulence could follow.

For now, Goldman Sachs’ downgrade serves as a stark reminder of the risks facing the U.S. economy. The firm’s decision to cut its stock market targets and raise its recession probability reflects growing concerns that Trump’s trade policies could have unintended economic consequences. With inflation, unemployment, and GDP growth all expected to worsen, the outlook for the economy remains uncertain.

In the weeks ahead, economic data and corporate earnings reports will provide further insight into how businesses and consumers are responding to these policy changes. If inflation continues to rise and economic growth slows further, the Fed may have to reconsider its monetary policy stance, which could add another layer of complexity to an already volatile market environment.

Ultimately, the extent to which Trump’s tariffs impact the economy will depend on how businesses, consumers, and policymakers respond. If companies find ways to absorb higher costs without passing them on to consumers, the inflationary impact could be limited. However, if prices rise significantly, the Fed may have no choice but to keep interest rates high, potentially leading to a broader economic slowdown.

In the meantime, investors should brace for continued uncertainty. Goldman Sachs’ revised forecast suggests that market conditions could remain challenging in the near term. While long-term economic fundamentals remain strong, the immediate risks posed by Trump’s trade policies cannot be ignored.

With the S&P 500 already experiencing its worst month since 2022, the coming weeks will be critical in determining whether the market can stabilize or if further declines are ahead. The outcome of Trump’s tariff policy will likely play a key role in shaping economic and market trends for the remainder of the year.

As always, market participants will be watching closely to see how the administration’s policies evolve and whether additional economic measures are introduced to counteract potential negative effects. For now, Goldman Sachs’ latest predictions underscore the uncertainty and risks facing the U.S. economy in 2025.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk announced on Thursday that he will step down from his position in the Donald Trump administration at the end of May after overseeing a $1 trillion reduction in the U.S. deficit. Musk, who was appointed as a “special government employee” for a 130-day term, has led cost-cutting initiatives as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Musk Calls It a ‘Revolution in Government’

In an interview with Fox News, Musk described his tenure as a historic transformation in federal spending.

“This is a revolution, possibly the biggest in government since the original revolution,” Musk said. “In the end, America will be in a much stronger position, with a fantastic future ahead.”

Musk, 53, who also heads Tesla and SpaceX and owns social media platform X, has received both praise and criticism for his aggressive cost-cutting strategies. Under DOGE, an agency composed of engineers and entrepreneurs, tens of thousands of federal employees have been laid off, and funding for multiple programs has been slashed.

Musk Confirms 130-Day Term Limit

When asked if he would extend his tenure, Musk stated that he believes his objectives will be largely completed by then.

“I think we will have accomplished the majority of what’s needed to cut the deficit by $1 trillion within that timeframe,” he said.

According to DOGE’s website, as of March 27, the agency has saved American taxpayers approximately $130 billion, equating to about $807 per person.

Eliminating Waste and Fraud: A 15% Cut is ‘Achievable’

Musk and his seven-member DOGE team—including Steve Davis, Joe Gebbia, Aram Moghaddassi, Brad Smith, Anthony Armstrong, Tom Krause, and Tyler Hassen—have focused on reducing government inefficiencies.

“Our goal is to cut spending by eliminating waste and fraud, aiming for a 15% reduction, which seems entirely realistic,” Musk told Fox News’ Bret Baier.

“The government operates inefficiently, with significant waste and fraud. We are confident that a 15% cut can be achieved without impacting critical services.”

Federal Credit Card Oversight: ‘This Doesn’t Make Sense’

A key area of DOGE’s focus has been federal credit card usage. DOGE member Steve Davis pointed out that there are around 4.6 million government-issued credit cards for an estimated 2.3 to 2.4 million employees.

“This doesn’t add up,” Davis said. “We’ve asked agencies whether they actually need all these cards, if they are being used, and if they can physically account for them.”

Musk called the situation absurd.

“There shouldn’t be more government credit cards than there are employees,” he said.

Criticism Over Lack of Oversight

Despite the administration’s claims of efficiency, critics argue that DOGE wields too much authority with insufficient oversight. Opponents allege that Musk’s team has unilaterally canceled federal contracts and implemented budget cuts without congressional approval.

Musk dismissed these concerns, insisting that his team takes a meticulous approach to decision-making.

“Some may say we’re making impulsive cuts, but that’s far from the truth,” Musk said. “We double-check, even triple-check, before making a decision.”

He also acknowledged that mistakes can happen.

“That’s not to say we don’t make errors. Expecting a flawless approach is like demanding a baseball player to bat a thousand—it’s impossible. When we make mistakes, we correct them quickly and move forward.”

President Donald Trump has intensified his criticism of federal judges who have blocked his administration’s policies, portraying them as threats to the nation and urging the Supreme Court to intervene.

In a Truth Social post on Thursday, Trump lashed out at judges who issued nationwide injunctions against his executive actions, calling them “radical left judges” and “lunatics” attempting to “assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes.” (Trump won the 2024 election with 77 million votes, and federal judges are appointed, not elected.)

“STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,” Trump wrote, directly appealing to Chief Justice John Roberts. “If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!”

The following morning, Trump reiterated his claims on Truth Social, again accusing federal judges of trying to take over presidential duties.

Trump’s administration has faced more than 100 lawsuits challenging his policies, with the former president arguing that nationwide injunctions have been unfairly used to block his agenda. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused these judges of acting as “partisan activists” in remarks to reporters on Wednesday.

“They are trying to dictate policy from the president of the United States,” Leavitt said. “They are trying to clearly slow-walk this administration’s agenda, and it’s unacceptable.”

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have encountered nationwide injunctions, but Trump and his supporters claim that he has faced an unprecedented number. According to the Harvard Law Review, Trump’s first term saw 64 nationwide injunctions—far more than any president since 2001.

However, Trump has exercised executive power in ways that previous presidents have not, and in his second term, he has aggressively pushed to expand the scope of his authority. As political analyst Steve Benen noted, Trump and his allies are framing judicial opposition as part of a broad conspiracy rather than acknowledging that his actions may be legally questionable.

Trump and billionaire Elon Musk have also called for judges who rule against the administration to be impeached. This prompted a rare public response from Chief Justice Roberts, who stated, “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

The Justice Department is currently awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on its request to narrow the reach of several judicial orders blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. However, as The Associated Press noted, the court does not appear to be rushing its decision.

President Donald Trump is facing significant disapproval across multiple issues, with a Fox News host stating Thursday that he is “underwater on everything” when it comes to his approval ratings.

Jessica Tarlov cited a new Quinnipiac poll released this week, which found that 53% of voters disapprove of Trump’s performance during his second term. Voters were surveyed on various topics, including trade policies with China and Canada, immigration, foreign relations, military affairs, the economy, and the federal workforce.

Since the start of his second term, the stock market has been experiencing a downturn, thousands of federal workers have lost their jobs, and Trump has created tension with some of the country’s strongest trade partners.

“The Democratic messaging actually has been going pretty well,” Tarlov said on Fox News’ The Five, despite a separate poll indicating that Democrats have struggled to respond effectively to Trump’s policies. She noted that Democrats have been emphasizing, “They’re trying to cut your healthcare while giving tax breaks to the rich.”

“There’s over 50% disapproval of Trump himself, how he’s handling the economy, how he’s handling the federal workforce, how he’s handling Ukraine-Russia, how he’s handling trade with Mexico, how he’s handling trade with Canada,” Tarlov added. “So basically, he’s underwater on everything.”

Trump’s approval ratings had already been struggling before his joint session of Congress address on March 4. Another Quinnipiac poll from last month showed that 45% of voters approved of his performance, while 49% disapproved.

A CNN poll released this week reported similar findings, with 54% of voters disapproving of Trump’s performance compared to 45% who approved. Additionally, a Reuters poll found that many voters viewed Trump’s economic policies as too “erratic.”

Tarlov attributed part of Trump’s declining approval ratings to recent town halls held by both Democratic and Republican congressional members. These events have drawn large crowds seeking clarification on the Trump administration’s policies, particularly regarding federal workforce reductions.

On the Republican side, social media footage has captured GOP lawmakers facing backlash for supporting the Department of Government Efficiency, which is overseeing these workforce cuts.

“And we know about the Republicans having town halls and then having to run away or asking questions like, ‘What do you think of DOGE?’ and expecting people to say something positive and then they are screaming,” Tarlov said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested, without evidence, that some of the outraged town hall attendees are “paid actors.”

This week, North Carolina Republican Representative Chuck Edwards faced an intense confrontation with constituents demanding explanations for his support of cuts to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He was met with boos and was eventually escorted out of the meeting.

President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday began declassifying all government files related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, making potentially tens of thousands of unredacted pages available to the public for the first time.

This release follows Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day in office in January, directing the full disclosure of government documents concerning the assassinations of Kennedy, his brother and presidential candidate Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, D-N.Y., and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

The specific contents of these newly available documents, and whether they contain any previously undisclosed information, remain unclear. Historians noted they would need time to analyze the files to determine whether they offer any significant new insights.

Thus far, the documents have not altered the longstanding conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, as the president rode in a Dallas motorcade.

Public Access to the JFK Files

The newly released JFK files can be accessed on the National Archives’ website. Most are scanned documents, some of which have faded or become difficult to read over time. The collection also includes photographs and sound recordings, predominantly from the 1960s.

Report from Russia: Oswald’s Poor Marksmanship

One document dated Nov. 20, 1991, appears to summarize U.S. intelligence findings on Lee Harvey Oswald, detailing his time in the Soviet Union, his tumultuous marriage to his Soviet wife, and his reportedly poor shooting skills.

According to the document, KGB official Nikonov reviewed Soviet security service files to determine if Oswald had ever been a KGB agent.

“Nikonov is now confident that Oswald was at no time an agent controlled by the KGB,” the document states.

The report, citing American professor E.B. Smith, describes how Nikonov examined five extensive files on Oswald and doubted that anyone could control him. However, the KGB reportedly monitored him closely while he was in the USSR.

The files also document Oswald’s troubled relationship with his wife and suggest that his marksmanship was subpar. “The KGB files reflected that Oswald was a poor shot when he tried target firing in the USSR,” the document notes.

Some conspiracy theorists have pointed to inconsistencies in Oswald’s behavioral records in CIA files, arguing that they support theories suggesting he did not act alone or was not involved in Kennedy’s assassination.

References to Conspiracy Theories in the Files

The newly disclosed documents reference conspiracy theories suggesting that Oswald left the Soviet Union in 1962 with the intent to assassinate Kennedy.

Documents from the Department of Defense, dated 1963, focus on Cold War tensions and U.S. efforts to counter Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s support for communist movements in Latin America.

The records suggest Castro was unlikely to instigate a war with the U.S. but might “intensify his support of subversive forces in Latin America.”

Experts’ Initial Reactions

James Johnston, author of Murder, Inc.: The CIA under John F. Kennedy, told USA Today that he did not expect any major revelations, given that the CIA and other agencies had already transferred their records to the National Archives in 1988.

“If it was going to embarrass the agency or tell a different story, they wouldn’t have turned them over to the National Archives in the first place,” said Johnston, who was a congressional investigator on the 1975 Church Committee, which examined CIA activities.

Johnston cited one notable document missing from the release: a transcript of the first conversation between President Lyndon Johnson and CIA Director John McCone after Kennedy’s assassination.

McCone had long been suspected of withholding information from the Warren Commission, the investigative panel established by Johnson. According to Philip Shenon, author of A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination, McCone initially pledged full cooperation but later withheld certain details.

McCone testified that the CIA had no evidence linking Oswald to any conspiracy, foreign or domestic. His testimony aligned with the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald, a former Marine and self-proclaimed Marxist, acted alone.

Years later, however, the CIA acknowledged that McCone had not been entirely forthcoming with the Warren Commission.

The Warren Commission’s Findings

Several of the newly released documents pertain to the Warren Commission, which was created by President Johnson to investigate Kennedy’s assassination.

The commission concluded that Oswald, who was arrested but later killed by nightclub owner Jack Ruby on live television, acted alone. However, Kennedy’s assassination has remained the subject of intense debate, with numerous theories challenging the official findings. Polls have consistently shown that many Americans believe the assassination was part of a broader conspiracy.

Trump’s Push for ‘Maximum Transparency’

Trump did not immediately comment on the document release, but Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard praised the move, calling it part of Trump’s pledge for “maximum transparency and a commitment to rebuild the trust of the American people in the Intelligence Community.”

For years, critics have accused the intelligence community, particularly the CIA, of withholding key information about Kennedy’s assassination. However, intelligence officials have insisted that all essential files have already been released and that any remaining redactions were necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods.

Gabbard stated that she issued a directive following Trump’s announcement, instructing all intelligence agencies to provide unredacted records for immediate public release.

Digital Release and Remaining Files

The newly released documents were made public just before 7 p.m. Tuesday. The National Archives and Records Administration, which manages the files, issued a statement confirming that all records previously withheld for classification were now released in accordance with Trump’s directive.

The National Archives noted that while some files are available online, others can only be accessed in person at the National Archives facility in College Park, Maryland.

“As the records continue to be digitized, they will be posted to this page,” the statement read, indicating that some documents are not yet available in digital form.

The agency also noted that certain information remains restricted under court seals or grand jury secrecy laws, while tax return records are protected under federal regulations.

Public Anticipation and Reaction

The document release followed Trump’s visit to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, where he now serves as board chairman.

“People have been waiting for decades for this,” Trump told reporters. “We have a tremendous amount of paper. You’ve got a lot of reading. I don’t believe we’re going to redact anything.”

The CIA and FBI, both of which played roles in JFK assassination investigations, declined immediate comment.

Expert Analysis on the Newly Released Files

JFK scholar Jefferson Morley called the release “an encouraging start.”

“We now have complete versions of approximately a third of the redacted JFK documents held by the National Archives,” said Morley, vice president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for historical government transparency.

He added that seven out of ten JFK files sought by researchers are now fully public, providing new insights into Kennedy’s distrust of the CIA, attempts to assassinate Castro, surveillance of Oswald in Mexico City, and CIA propaganda efforts involving Oswald.

However, Morley noted that two-thirds of the promised files remain unreleased, including over 500 IRS records and 2,400 recently discovered FBI documents.

“Nonetheless, this is the most positive news on the declassification of JFK files since the 1990s,” Morley said.

The Justice Department’s Effort to Meet Trump’s Deadline

Trump’s order reportedly triggered a rush within the Justice Department to meet his deadline. ABC News and Reuters reported that a senior official in the DOJ’s Office of Intelligence sent an internal email just before 5 p.m. Monday, instructing attorneys to conduct a final review of the documents.

The push for full declassification began with Trump’s first executive order on Jan. 20, when he directed agencies to release files related to the assassinations of Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr.

FBI Unveils Additional 2,400 JFK Records

Last month, the FBI announced the discovery of approximately 2,400 additional records connected to Kennedy’s assassination. These files are in the process of being transferred to the National Archives, but their contents remain unclear.

While previous investigations found no evidence of a government conspiracy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, has advocated for releasing the files to examine whether U.S. officials were involved in a cover-up.

The National Archives continues to review and release documents in compliance with Trump’s directive.

A global watchdog organization has placed the United States on a list of countries experiencing “faltering civic freedoms” following concerns over President Donald Trump’s recent actions and policies.

CIVICUS, a nonprofit that advocates for democracy and human rights, included the U.S. in its first watchlist of the year on Monday. The organization noted that America, previously regarded as “a global champion for democracy and human rights,” has drawn scrutiny due to Trump’s efforts to reshape the federal government to align with his vision while distancing the U.S. from global affairs.

The United States is now listed among 37 other nations, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Chile, and Slovakia, under the category of countries with “narrowed” civic freedoms.

“This is an unparalleled attack on the rule of law in the United States, not seen since the days of McCarthyism in the twentieth century,” said Mandeep Tiwana, the interim co-secretary-general of CIVICUS, in a statement.

Tiwana further elaborated, saying, “Restrictive executive orders, unjustifiable institutional cutbacks, and intimidation tactics through threatening pronouncements by senior officials in the administration are creating an atmosphere to chill democratic dissent, a cherished American ideal.”

The “narrowed” designation by CIVICUS signifies that while people in these countries can still exercise civil liberties, violations of these rights occur periodically. This is the second-highest rating level, following the “open” category.

One of the primary concerns cited by the organization is Trump’s decision to dismiss large numbers of federal employees and replace them with individuals who demonstrate unwavering loyalty to him, a move that CIVICUS warns could “severely impact constitutional freedoms.”

Trump has deliberately chosen appointees based on their personal allegiance to him rather than their qualifications or expertise.

Among those involved in restructuring the government is billionaire Elon Musk, who, despite lacking an official title, has served as a “special government employee.” Musk has played a role in identifying areas within the federal workforce for reduction, seeking to eliminate what the administration views as inefficient or wasteful expenditures.

This initiative has led to significant changes within key government agencies. The U.S. Agency for International Development has been stripped of much of its authority to provide humanitarian aid and assistance, while the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has seen a reduction in its ability to regulate and enforce protections against fraud and unfair business practices.

Additionally, Trump has employed executive orders to consolidate power within the executive branch, thereby increasing his administration’s ability to oversee and control federal agencies, ensuring they align with his policy priorities.

These measures have included halting all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, suppressing pro-Palestinian student demonstrations, and promoting policies that reflect his administration’s ideological stance.

“The Trump administration seems hellbent on dismantling the system of checks and balances, which are the pillars of a democratic society,” Tiwana warned in the CIVICUS statement.

Monday’s designation is not the first time the U.S. has been downgraded on the watchdog’s list. In 2020, CIVICUS lowered the country’s status to “obstructed” after determining that the Trump administration had repressed mass protests.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, asserting that the U.S. was under invasion by a Venezuelan gang. The law, originally designed for wartime, grants the president significant authority, enabling him to accelerate mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. This move signals a potential intensification of Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts.

Trump’s order specifically targets the Tren de Aragua gang, which he claims is operating as a hostile force under the Venezuelan government’s direction. “Over the years, Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations, including TdA,” Trump stated, as reported by the Associated Press. He further argued, “The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.”

The declaration came on the same day that a federal judge in Washington blocked the administration from deporting five Venezuelans under the anticipated order, indicating potential legal resistance. Even before Trump’s official announcement, a federal judge had intervened to prevent these deportations using the Alien Enemies Act, signaling an immediate legal battle.

Legal Challenges and Court Rulings

Civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward, quickly filed an urgent lawsuit in Washington’s federal court. They argued that Trump’s order classified Tren de Aragua as a “predatory incursion” orchestrated by a foreign government, a move that could lead to indiscriminate deportations of Venezuelans.

DC Circuit Chief Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order, valid for 14 days, to shield five Venezuelans in immigration custody who were at risk of imminent deportation under the act. Boasberg’s ruling sought to preserve the current situation while scheduling a hearing to determine whether broader protections should be extended to all Venezuelans in the U.S.

The Trump administration swiftly challenged the restraining order, arguing that blocking presidential action before its execution would significantly hinder executive operations. The Justice Department warned that allowing such judicial interventions could enable district courts to obstruct crucial national security measures, including intelligence operations, drone strikes, or counterterrorism efforts. The administration urged the court to prevent such a precedent from taking hold.

What Is the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, is a law designed for use during wartime or when the U.S. faces an imminent invasion threat from a foreign nation. It grants the president the authority to detain or deport foreign nationals from enemy countries during conflicts, with a particular focus on recent immigrants who might be perceived as aligning with U.S. adversaries.

When Was the Alien Enemies Act Last Used?

According to CNN, legal experts believe invoking the act outside of wartime—especially in response to threats from criminal gangs or cartels—would present legal challenges unless the U.S. were under direct attack by a foreign government.

The Alien Enemies Act has been invoked three times in U.S. history, each instance occurring during wartime. As noted by the Brennan Center, it was used during World War I and World War II to detain and deport individuals from Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Italy, and Japan. Additionally, the act played a central role in the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, a highly controversial episode in U.S. history.

Presidential Powers Under the Alien Enemies Act

The act grants the president broad authority, including:

• Detention and Deportation: The president can detain or deport any male over the age of 14 from an enemy nation if they are deemed a potential threat.
• National Security Measures: The act provides a legal framework for mitigating risks posed by foreign nationals from hostile nations to protect U.S. interests.
• Restrictions on Movement and Property: The president can impose travel restrictions or require individuals to report regularly to authorities.
• Expedited Mass Deportations: The act allows the president to bypass certain immigration and criminal law protections, facilitating rapid deportations of individuals designated as threats.

Key Implications of Trump’s Order

1. Legal Challenges and Constitutional Concerns

Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, have already initiated lawsuits, arguing that Trump’s order violates due process and immigrants’ legal rights. A federal judge’s temporary block on some deportations suggests a prolonged legal battle is ahead.

2. Targeting of Venezuelan Migrants

Trump has justified his order by focusing on the Tren de Aragua gang, alleging that it has connections to Venezuela’s government. However, this designation could impact thousands of Venezuelan migrants in the U.S., many of whom fled economic hardship and political repression.

3. Potential Diplomatic Fallout

Trump’s move may strain U.S.-Venezuela relations, particularly if deported individuals face persecution under President Nicolás Maduro’s regime. Maduro’s government has long been at odds with the U.S., and mass deportations could heighten tensions.

4. Uncertainty for Undocumented Immigrants

The order has created widespread fear and uncertainty among undocumented Venezuelan migrants, who now face the possibility of detention or deportation without standard legal protections.

5. Use of Detention Centers and International Transfers

The Trump administration has announced plans to relocate approximately 300 suspected gang members to detention facilities in El Salvador. This decision has drawn criticism from human rights groups concerned about the treatment of detainees in these facilities.

6. Broader Immigration Crackdown

Trump’s move signals his commitment to aggressively pursuing stricter immigration policies, potentially laying the groundwork for more expansive crackdowns if he secures a second term. The use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context raises concerns about its future application beyond Venezuelan migrants.

A Test for Executive Power

Trump’s decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act marks a significant escalation in his immigration policy. While his administration argues that this move is necessary for national security, legal experts caution that using a wartime law to target migrant groups could face substantial constitutional hurdles.

The federal court’s intervention suggests that judicial challenges will continue to shape the fate of Trump’s order. The restraining order issued by Judge Boasberg may be just the first of many legal barriers Trump faces in implementing this measure.

The Road Ahead

With ongoing court battles, diplomatic considerations, and human rights concerns, Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act remains a contentious issue. While supporters see it as a necessary tool to combat transnational crime, opponents view it as an overreach that could set a dangerous precedent for future immigration policies.

The coming weeks will be crucial as the administration seeks to defend its actions in court, while advocacy groups continue their efforts to challenge what they see as an unlawful and unconstitutional policy. The ultimate outcome of this legal battle could have lasting implications for immigration enforcement and executive authority in the U.S.

The administration of President Donald Trump filed a series of emergency appeals with the Supreme Court on Thursday, seeking approval to proceed with plans to end birthright citizenship. This move elevates a controversial legal theory that multiple lower courts have strongly rejected.

In its emergency appeals, the Trump administration argued that lower courts had overstepped their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the policy. It urged the Supreme Court to limit the scope of these orders.

A federal judge in January ruled that Trump’s executive order was “blatantly unconstitutional” and halted its implementation. Shortly afterward, a Maryland judge stated that the order “runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.” Despite appeals, courts have consistently declined to pause the lower court rulings, which imposed nationwide injunctions on Trump’s order issued on the first day of his second term.

For over 150 years, courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment to ensure citizenship to anyone “born or naturalized in the United States,” regardless of their parents’ immigration status. A landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision affirmed this interpretation, and the current Court has not indicated any intention to reconsider that precedent.

However, some conservative legal scholars argue that this long-standing interpretation is incorrect. They point to a phrase in the 14th Amendment that states citizenship applies only to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. According to this perspective, immigrants who are in the country illegally remain under the jurisdiction of their home nations and should not be granted U.S. citizenship at birth.

Federal courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have all issued injunctions preventing the policy’s implementation. These rulings came in response to lawsuits filed by over 20 states, two immigrant rights organizations, and seven individual plaintiffs.

Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead attorney in one of the lawsuits challenging the administration, criticized the executive order, saying, “The president’s executive order is outrageously illegal and cruel, and it should not be applied to a single baby in this country.” He added, “We are going to continue fighting to ensure that no child is denied their citizenship by this executive order.”

The Trump administration’s Supreme Court appeals do not directly address whether the executive order is constitutional. Instead, they make what the administration calls a “modest” request to narrow the scope of the injunctions. If granted, this request would allow the government to enforce the policy against individuals not currently covered by ongoing litigation.

The Justice Department, in its emergency appeals, expressed frustration with the increasing use of nationwide injunctions, arguing, “Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration.” It continued, “Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to ‘hundreds of thousands’ of unspecified individuals who are ‘not before the court nor identified by the court.’”

As an alternative measure, the administration requested permission to issue guidance on how it would implement the policy, even if the Court did not fully lift the injunctions.

While the focus of the administration’s legal challenge is on lower court rulings that blocked the executive order, the Justice Department used its Supreme Court appeal to outline broader arguments against birthright citizenship.

“During the 20th century,” the administration argued, “the executive branch adopted the incorrect position that the citizenship clause extended birthright citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States – even children of illegal aliens or temporarily present aliens.” It further claimed, “That policy of near-universal birthright citizenship has created strong incentives for illegal immigration.”

With the Supreme Court now reviewing the case, it is expected to establish a briefing schedule that will require the parties challenging the executive order to submit their responses quickly, possibly within just a few days.

President Trump signed an executive order on Friday aimed at dissolving seven federal agencies, including those overseeing media, libraries, museums, and homelessness initiatives.

The directive instructs these government entities to be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law,” asserting that they should “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel.” Agency heads are required to submit a compliance report to the Office of Management and Budget within seven days.

Among the agencies targeted is the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees Voice of America (VOA). The order also seeks to dismantle the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a think tank within the Smithsonian Institution, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which provides support to libraries, archives, and museums nationwide.

Additionally, the executive action eliminates the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, which works to prevent and address homelessness across the country. Other agencies affected include the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which helps resolve labor disputes and work stoppages, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which promotes economic opportunities in underserved communities, and the Minority Business Development Agency, which supports the growth of minority-owned businesses.

Trump’s decision has raised concerns about the future of VOA, particularly following his selection of former Arizona gubernatorial and Senate candidate Kari Lake to lead the outlet. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, Lake assured that under her leadership, the international broadcaster would not become “Trump TV.”

While the president does not directly appoint VOA’s leader, Trump has nominated conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III to head the U.S. Agency for Global Media. If confirmed by the Senate, Bozell would have the authority to appoint Lake to the position.

The U.S. Agency for Global Media also supervises Radio Free Asia, which broadcasts and publishes content for audiences in Asia, serving as a countermeasure against Chinese state propaganda.

The Trump administration has been pursuing a broad restructuring of the federal government, with tech billionaire Elon Musk leading efforts to cut spending and reduce the workforce. However, these efforts have faced legal challenges. On Thursday, federal judges in Maryland and Northern California issued rulings blocking mass dismissals of government employees.

In response, the White House announced on Friday that it would appeal the court decisions, which have required the administration to reinstate probationary federal workers.

A federal judge ruled Thursday night that thousands of federal employees dismissed under the Trump administration must be temporarily reinstated.

U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Maryland issued a temporary restraining order against multiple federal agencies, departments, and their leadership, which had terminated workers as part of a workforce reduction initiative.

“In this case, the government conducted massive layoffs, but it gave no advance notice. It claims it wasn’t required to because, it says, it dismissed each one of these thousands of probationary employees for ‘performance’ or other individualized reasons,” Bredar stated in his ruling.

“On the record before the Court, this isn’t true. There were no individualized assessments of employees. They were all just fired. Collectively,” he added.

Earlier that day, a separate federal judge in California directed several federal departments, including Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Treasury, to reinstate thousands of probationary employees who had been terminated the previous month. The Justice Department responded by filing a notice of appeal in that case.

Bredar’s order specifically applies to 12 federal departments that dismissed probationary workers. These include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

Additionally, the ruling covers recently terminated probationary workers at several federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the General Services Administration, and the Small Business Administration.

Bredar set a deadline of March 17 at 1 p.m. ET for these agencies to reinstate the affected employees.

The judge acknowledged the scale of his ruling, considering the government had dismissed approximately 200,000 probationary employees—workers who were either newly hired or had recently changed positions—since Donald Trump assumed office in January.

“The Court is not blind to the practical reality that the relief being ordered today will have far-reaching impacts on the federal workforce and will require the Government to expend considerable resources in an effort to undo the [reductions in force] that have been put into place,” Bredar noted.

“When, as is likely the case here, the Government has engaged in an illegal scheme spanning broad swaths of the federal workforce, it is inevitable that the remediation of that scheme will itself be a significant task,” he continued.

A coalition of Democratic attorneys general had initiated the lawsuit, seeking a temporary restraining order that would reinstate the terminated employees. They argued that the Trump administration had disregarded established protocols in executing mass terminations of federal workers.

However, Bredar ruled that certain federal entities, including the Defense Department, the Office of Personnel Management, and the National Archives, would not be subject to his order. He cited “insufficient evidence” that a workforce reduction had taken place at these agencies.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed support for the ruling in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

“We’re pleased with the court’s decision to restrain the Trump Admin’s reckless directive and we’ll continue to monitor and ensure compliance,” he wrote.

The White House has yet to provide a response to the ruling.

If the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) were fully privatized, it would likely result in more frequent rate increases, reduced service days, and a restructured network resembling that of FedEx and UPS, according to industry experts.

Former President Donald Trump has proposed the idea of privatizing the nearly 250-year-old institution as part of efforts to address its financial losses. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and an influential figure in the Trump administration, also supported the idea during a recent Morgan Stanley conference, according to reports.

However, the prospect of privatization has drawn opposition from postal employees and lawmakers, who argue that it could jeopardize service in rural areas, raise costs, and threaten jobs within the agency. In a video message to USPS employees on February 25, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy acknowledged that any structural changes would ultimately be determined by Congress and the president.

“To the degree possible postal leadership will be involved, so that we ensure the nation’s leaders are aware of how future proposed changes may impact our organization’s ability to serve the American people,” DeJoy stated.

The State of USPS

USPS is already working toward financial stability through DeJoy’s 10-year “Delivering for America” plan, which involves various network adjustments aimed at reducing costs while increasing revenue from package deliveries. Despite these efforts, the agency continues to struggle.

In fiscal year 2024, USPS reported a loss of $9.5 billion, with 80% of the deficit attributed to factors beyond management’s control, such as unfunded pension liabilities. To address these challenges, DeJoy has advocated for administrative and legislative reforms, including changes to pension funding.

The Trump administration and lawmakers are now evaluating whether privatization—turning USPS into a profit-driven enterprise without regulatory constraints—would be beneficial for the country.

Despite its financial struggles, USPS remains a key component of the nation’s infrastructure. A 2018 report by a task force established during Trump’s first term emphasized that its delivery network “is a critical part of the nation’s infrastructure that cannot be replicated by private actors.”

Aaron Alpeter, founder of supply chain consultancy Izba, pointed out that defining USPS’s role is essential before making any structural changes.

“We have to really understand, what is the Post Office?” Alpeter said. “Is it meant to compete with commercial interests that are out there, or is meant to provide a safety net for things that commercial interests are not interested in?”

Currently, USPS faces operational constraints in its cost-cutting efforts. DeJoy noted last June that over half of its carrier routes operate at a loss. However, due to its universal service obligation, the agency cannot simply eliminate these routes, as it is legally required to deliver mail promptly and reliably across the country.

This obligation includes servicing costly-to-reach areas such as Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. Anthony Pizza, Vice President of Growth and Innovation at SpeedX, a parcel carrier that also operates in Hawaii, highlighted the inherent cost challenges in reaching such locations.

“There’s a certain floor for the cost to move things there,” Pizza explained.

Unlike private courier companies, USPS does not receive tax funding to cover the added expenses associated with delivering to remote areas. Any changes to its universal service obligation would require oversight by Congress and the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Even if privatized, USPS could still be required to maintain certain service standards. For instance, the privatized Royal Mail in the United Kingdom is mandated to deliver and collect letters six days a week at affordable rates.

“If we’re going to keep the service standards as they are today, you have to be very realistic to think about what privatization can actually accomplish,” said Derek Lossing, founder of Cirrus Global Advisors and a former Amazon Logistics leader. “Again, if you look at the Royal Mail, I don’t think it’s accomplished nearly what they thought it could.”

Potential Changes Under Privatization

Experts predict that a privatized USPS would likely scale back its six-day-a-week delivery service in less profitable rural areas to cut costs. This would align with the agency’s existing cost-reduction efforts in remote regions.

Another major shift could involve significantly reducing USPS’s physical footprint of over 33,000 post offices. Lossing suggested that, like UPS, the agency could shift to using local businesses as pickup and drop-off locations instead of maintaining standalone post offices.

“Your footprint would look more like a UPS or FedEx,” Lossing noted.

Expected Rate Hikes

Privatization would also likely lead to more aggressive rate increases. Analysts at Wells Fargo estimated that USPS would need to raise parcel delivery prices by at least 30% to achieve financial independence. Their February 27 research report indicated that USPS’s pricing was 25% to 60% lower than FedEx and UPS in the fourth quarter of 2024, depending on the service.

“I don’t know how they would be able to sustain delivery with the current price structure,” said Helaine Rich, Vice President of Strategic Sales and Administration at ePost Global.

While raising prices and cutting service days might help USPS improve its financial outlook, experts warned that such measures carry significant risks, especially in package delivery. If USPS reduces delivery days in certain areas, businesses and consumers may increasingly turn to alternative carriers.

On the other hand, USPS’s ability to reliably deliver to rural communities remains a competitive advantage, particularly for e-commerce companies seeking nationwide coverage, according to Lossing.

The Wells Fargo report also pointed out that substantial rate hikes by a privatized USPS could benefit competitors like FedEx and UPS by “increasing the floor for” delivery rates. Additionally, higher postage costs could accelerate declines in mail volume as businesses and individuals seek digital alternatives.

The Road Ahead

Instead of fully privatizing USPS, the U.S. government could opt for a partial approach by keeping the mail business under federal control while privatizing the package delivery segment, which competes with private companies. Several experts believe such a model could limit disruptions to mail service while allowing for competitive efficiencies in package shipping.

“I don’t see it happening, obviously, on the letter mail side of things,” Rich said regarding privatization.

No matter the approach, transitioning to a privatized model would be a lengthy process. Mark Waverek, Managing Partner at PlaidMark Management and Consulting Services, compared it to the multi-year restructuring efforts seen in countries like Germany.

“You just can’t snap your fingers and turn it on tomorrow,” Waverek said. “This is going to take a well-thought-out process of what those cuts are going to be, what it’s going to mean to the people on the service side [and] what alternatives are going to be in place. It’s going to take time.”

Congress narrowly avoided a government shutdown Friday, mere hours before the deadline, as the Senate approved a spending bill that had already cleared the House. However, the passage of this stopgap measure revealed deep fractures within the Democratic Party.

The legislation, designed to keep the government funded into the fall, now awaits the signature of President Donald Trump, who is expected to approve it.

Senate Democrats faced mounting pressure to reject the Trump-backed bill, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with other Democrats who facilitated its passage, is now facing backlash from within his party.

The internal discord became increasingly apparent as lawmakers raced against the clock to prevent a shutdown that could have had significant consequences across federal agencies. The episode underscored the Democrats’ ongoing struggle to counter Trump and the Republican dominance in Washington.

Roughly 90 minutes before Senate Republicans averted the shutdown in a near party-line vote, Schumer and nine other Democrats crossed the aisle to advance the bill in a critical procedural vote. Despite mounting pressure from within their caucus to block it entirely, the bill required only a simple majority to pass, and nearly all Democrats who had initially supported the procedural step ultimately voted against it in the final tally.

Schumer defended his decision, arguing that the Democrats faced an impossible dilemma: either shut down the government for an indefinite period to challenge Trump or accept a Republican bill that they believed would slash spending on programs such as veterans’ health care and public services in Washington, DC.

“I believe it is the best way to minimize the harm that the Trump administration will do to the American people,” Schumer stated, explaining his reasoning for enabling the bill’s passage.

“Clearly, this is a Hobson’s choice. The CR is a bad bill, but as bad as the CR is, I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option,” he continued.

Trump, in turn, praised Schumer for his stance, telling reporters after the vote, “I appreciate Senator Schumer, and I think he did the right thing, really. I’m very impressed by that.”

Despite Schumer’s efforts, discontent within the Democratic Party was palpable. Many Senate and House Democrats viewed the move as a concession, squandering a crucial opportunity to exert leverage against Trump in his second term.

Democrats across the country closely followed the procedural vote, seeing it as a key test of their party’s resolve in standing up to the president.

In the end, the Senate passed the stopgap bill in a 54-46 vote, securing government funding through September 30. Among Democrats, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with the party, supported the measure. The only Republican to vote against it was Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

“Once I had voted for cloture, it was an opportunity to pass the bill, and I thought it was more honest to vote for it,” Shaheen told CNN. She added, “I thought, much as I didn’t like the CR, I thought a government shutdown would be worse and would give Trump and Elon Musk and the DOGE operation more of an opportunity to fire people, to shut down agencies and to close the work of the government.”

Following the passage of the stopgap measure, the Senate also approved a separate bill to allow Washington, DC, to maintain control over its funds. This move came after Democrats warned that the Republican funding plan would cut $1.1 billion from the city’s budget. The House must now approve this measure, but its fate remains uncertain.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other prominent Democrats had urged voters to pressure senators into blocking the bill and taking a stand against Trump’s attempts to dismantle federal agencies. Many within the party now believe Schumer failed this test.

The fallout from Schumer’s decision has reverberated throughout the Democratic Party, with critics emerging from various factions. However, no senators have publicly declared their intention to challenge his leadership.

Earlier in the week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries led an aggressive effort to whip votes against the bill. In the end, House Democrats lost only one member to the opposing side, but their efforts were insufficient to prevent the bill from passing in the House on Tuesday.

Jeffries declined to comment on whether he had lost confidence in Schumer due to their differing stances on the funding issue. When asked about it on Friday, he simply responded, “Next question.”

Democrats Reflect on Next Steps

In the aftermath of the vote, Senate Democrats are now grappling with how to move forward as a unified caucus, given the internal divisions exposed by the spending bill.

Schumer told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Friday evening that he had anticipated disagreements within his party but maintained that a government shutdown would have been the worse outcome.

“My job as leader is to lead the party and if there’s going to be danger in the near future, to protect the party. And I’m proud I did it, I knew I did the right thing, and I knew there would be some disagreements. That’s how it always is,” he said.

Schumer also defended his leadership position, asserting, “My caucus and I are in sync.”

Sen. Martin Heinrich, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, refrained from commenting on whether the party needed new leadership, telling reporters, “That’s a conversation for inside the caucus. I’m not going to debate that out here.”

“I think that Leader Schumer has been very effective in a lot of battles, but we also need to — these are new times, and we need to all come together. And so, you know, second guessing Leader Schumer out here isn’t going to accomplish the kind of community that we’re going to need to be able to stand up to the president. So, we’ll have that conversation inside caucus,” Heinrich added.

Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed confidence in Schumer but acknowledged that the caucus had endured a turbulent week.

“I voted no on the CR. I heard that overwhelmingly from folks, and again, recognizing I got tons of federal workers. But I have total respect for the folks who reached another conclusion, and the idea that they would have had a shutdown that would have put us into the abyss with, unfortunately, parts of this administration, doesn’t follow the law,” Warner said.

He further emphasized the need for a broader vision for the party, stating, “I think the Democrats need to have a pro-growth agenda that recognizes fairness, and that is, frankly, not the debate though, that we just took place. That we just took place, it was two awful choices.”

As the Democratic Party regroups following this divisive episode, the long-term implications for party unity and strategy remain uncertain. With tensions still simmering, the coming months will test whether the party can reconcile internal disagreements while continuing to challenge the Republican-led government.